SIMAR JEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is employed as Sub Inspector in U.P. Police was placed under suspension by an order dated 18.2.2006 on the basis of an episode telecast by Star News Channel on 17.2.2006. A preliminary enquiry was directed into the facts as noticed in the episode. The officer conducting the preliminary enquiry submitting a report to the effect that the petitioner was guilty of demanding illegal gratification for ensuring that persons mentioned in the report are not harassed by the police. On the basis of the report so submitted which according to the petitioner is wholly ex parte, the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut by means of the order dated 21.2.2006 has decided to dismiss the petitioner from service without holding, departmental proceedings in exercise of powers under Rule 8(2) Proviso (B) of the 1991 Rules. This order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut is under challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner Shri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shishir Tandon submits that the impugned order does not record any reasons as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry. In absence of reasons having been recorded in writing as required under Rule 8(2) Proviso (B), the order impugned cannot be legally sustained.

(3.) Standing Counsel on the other hand submiti that since the news channel had telecast the episode depicting the involvement of the petitioner in a misconduct live, it was appropriate that such police offices who damage the image of the police department at large should not be permitted to continue in service and, therefore, he suggests that no interference be made in the impugned order. Standing Counsel further submits that petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy by way of Appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The writ petition be, therefore, dismissed.