AFJAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 9.2.2009 dismissing the petitioner, who was a Constable in the Armed Police, from service. The order itself has been passed in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment And Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1991"). The provision aforementioned confers discretion upon the Authority to dispense with the inquiry contemplated and liable to be conducted before dismissing/removing a person or inflicting upon him the punishment of reduction in rank. A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the said power is available to be exercised if the Authority is satisfied that for reasons recorded in writing, it is not practicable to hold such an inquiry. The provision in such sense is akin to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) A reading of the impugned order establishes that the respondent No. 2 has chosen to exercise the said power on the ground that in the departmental proceedings, no person will come forward to give evidence. He further records that the continuance of the petitioner in service would have a deleterious effect on other employees of the Department.

(3.) A reading of the impugned order shows that on 5.2.2009, information with regard to the conduct of the petitioner was received at about 4:25 in the evening and when police authorities arrived on the scene, it is alleged, that the petitioner was found in an intoxicated state and that his rifle was placed against the wall. Finding the petitioner in such a state, the police authorities, who had arrived at the scene, took into their custody the weapon and ammunition on the person of the petitioner whereafter, he was taken for a medical examination to Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur. The impugned order further records that upon a medical examination being conducted, the authorities submitted a report which corroborated the fact of the Petitioner being under the influence of alcohol and in a state of inebriation during duty hours. The impugned order then proceeds to record various findings on the past conduct of the petitioner and concludes that the conduct of the petitioner was clearly unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force and that his continuance in service would clearly not be in the general interest of discipline in the Department and that the conduct of the petitioner clearly amounted to shaking the confidence which the members of the general public were entitled to expect from a member of a disciplined force.