BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Constable." He was removed from the service by an order dated 9.7.2001 under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 8 of the U.P. Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by an order dated 9.11.2001. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Rule 8, the services of. the petitioner could be dispensed with provided the disciplinary authority was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry and that the satisfaction of the authority was recorded in writing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority had not recorded any reasons in the impugned order while dispensing with the inquiry and, since no reasons had been recorded, the impugned order could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.

(2.) Admittedly, the services of the petitioner had been terminated under Rule 8(2)(b) of The Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 8(2)(b) reads as under:

(3.) The language of the aforesaid rule is similar to the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR1985 SC 1416 , (1985)87 BOMLR563 , (1985 )3 CompLJ45 (SC), [1985 (51)FLR362], (1985)II LLJ206 SC , 1985 (2)SCALE133 , (1985)3 SCC398 , [1985]Supp2 SCR131 , 1985 (2)SLJ145 (SC), the Supreme Court held (para 130)" The condition precedent for the application of clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that" it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311.... "...Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability, which is required by clause (b). What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. "...The reasonable practicability of holing an inquiry is Appeal allowed matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority." "...A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arb arily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the Government servant is weak and must fail".