MOTI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Affidavits have been exchanged.

(2.) WITH the consent of parties' Counsel the petition is decided finally at the admission stage.

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed as Constable on 26. 12. 1999 and he was posted at Lucknow after training. According to petitioner's Counsel, he performed duties in various districts of U. P. as Lucknow, Sitapur, Mahoba and Unnao. Ac cording to petitioner's Counsel, during the entire tenure of service the petitioner has not faced any departmental proceedings, or was punished. While posted at Unnao, he obtained leave on 3. 9. 2003 and continued till 30. 12. 2003 i. e. , 190 days. THE period of which the petitioner was on leave, was reported to be unauthorised absence from duty hence, under provisions of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, the petitioner was dismissed, from service by the order dated 10. 12. 2006 by the Superintendent of Police, Unnao. THE provisions of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules are analogous to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. For conve nience the Rule 8' (2) (b) of the Rules is reproduced as under : 8. Dismissal and removal.- (2) No Police Officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary pro ceedings as contemplated by these rules : Provided that this rule shall not apply- (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him jn rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry; or" 5. THE plain reading of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules shows that a police em ployee can be dismissed from service without holding any inquiry if the authority is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold departmental enquiry.