RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioenr has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 05.08.2006 taken by Deputy Inspector General of Police Meerut Zone Meerut, District Meerut, respondent no.3 dispensing with the services of the petitioner by exercising and invoking power vested under Rule 8(2)(b) U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that on 03.08.2006 petitioner alongwith constable Sanjeev Kumar was on petrolling duty. During petrolling duty at about 9.30 pm, four unknown miscreants attacked Sanjeev Kumar and on account of which rifle which was being carried by the Sanjeev Kumar sealing of the same was broken and all four miscreants carried the rifle of Sanjeev Kumar with five live cartridges in jungle. First Information Report being Case Crime No. 148 of 2006 under Sec. 392 Penal Code was lodged. On 05.08.2006 Circle Officer, Garhmukteshwar and Superintendent of Police (Rural Area) submitted their comments and found that petitioner did not make any resistance which reflects unsuitability on the post and in case any resistance would have been put qua the said incident then same could have been avoided. In this background prima facie petitioner was found unfit for retaining the post and it was also mentioned that image of police has been tarnished and retention of the petitioner in disciplined force is inappropriate. It has further been mentioned that from the facts and comments supplied that there is no requirement for detailed inquiry as such Deputy Inspector General of Police Meerut Zone Meerut, District Meerut, respondent no.3 in exercise of power vested under Rule 8(2)(b) U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 dismissed the services of the petitioner. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed and much stress has been laid on the fact that action which has been taken is on the basis of report which was submitted and rightful decision has been taken warranting no interference by this Court.