CONSTABLE KAMLA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1987. By an order dated 12-12-1997 the petitioner was suspended pending contemplated enquiry. The reason for suspending the petitioner was that he was found asleep during duty hours and on medical examination it was found that the smell of alcohol was coming' from his mouth. The doctor opined that even though the petitioner had consumed alcohol, he was not intoxicated and that he did not require any medical aid. Subsequently, by an order dated 31-12-1997, the suspension order was revoked and on the next day, i.e., 1-1-1998 his services were terminated by invoking the proviso to Sub-clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of The Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, which was also rejected by an order dated 6-3-1998. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition assailing the aforesaid orders.

(2.) Heard Sri Siddheshwari Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri S.C. Srivastava, Advocate and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the proviso to clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, the services could be dispensed with where the disciplinary authority was satisfied that for some reasons to be recorded by that authority in writing, it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an enquiry. He further submitted, that in the instant case the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with without holding an enquiry as contemplated in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8. According to Sri Siddheshwari Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel, the disciplinary authority had dispensed with the enquiry on irrelevant grounds. The decision to dispense with the enquiry rested solely on the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority, i.e., on the whim or caprice of the concerned authority.