VISHAMBHAR DAYAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order dated 18th May, 2006, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 while working as Constable in Civil Police. Against the order of dismissal the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which too has been dismissed vide order dated 27.6.2007 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Division, Agra. Feeling aggrieved against both the orders, the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition.

(2.) THE submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner in nutshell is that while dispensing with the enquiry against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of rules the disciplinary authority did not record any reason as to why it is not reasonably practical to hold disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. The mere citation of rules is not sufficient compliance of provision of rules itself unless condition precedent for invoking the provisions of rules are in existence and while invoking jurisdiction under Rule 8(2)(b) of the said Rules, the same was recited in the order itself. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct and has to be accepted.

(3.) IN the result the petitioner is reinstated in service, but only for limited purposes, the disciplinary authority shall either pass fresh order under Rule 8(2)(b) of the said Rules or he shall hold disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. Since the petitioner was already under suspension, therefore, after reinstatement he shall be deemed to be under suspension during such course of action stipulated to be undertaken by him. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.