DHARAM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 1.7.1974. The petitioner was found misbehaving under the influence of liquor on 23.9.1996. The petitioner was taken to the hospital where he was medically examined and it was found that he had consumed liquor while on duty. A report to this effect was submitted on 31.10.1996. On the basis of this report dated 31.10.1996, the services of the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 20.11.1996 exercising the powers under 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 the Rules). The reason incorporated in the order of termination was that the petitioner after consuming alcohol used to misbehave with the public at large and that he was penalised and punished on various occasions and that he was also in the habit of taking unauthorised leave and therefore, it was not possible to hold a departmental inquiry and it was also not in public interest to hold such an inquiry. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected and thereafter he preferred a revision, which was also rejected/Consequently, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) Heard Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Kamal Singh Yadav, the learned counsel, the disciplinary authority had dispensed with the enquiry on irrelevant grounds. The decision to dispense with the enquiry was rested solely on the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority, i.e. on the whim or caprice of the concerned authority.