SUBODH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner a constable in civil police was posted at Police Station, Government Railway Police, Aligarh. He was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Agra under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short the Rules of 1991) after recording reasons that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner has challenged the order on the ground, that the reasons, given for holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the departmental enquiry, do not satisfy the test of invoking such powers on the principles of law laid down by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416.

(3.) A report of the incident was lodged by complainant Shri Mukhtar son of Shri Niyamak resident of Village and Post Jaitakhanai Police Station Raniganj District Auraria, Bihar and was registered as as Case Crime No. 105 of 2008 Police Station G.R.P. Etawah in which the loot of Rs. 37,750/- from 27 passengers was reported as robbery under Section 394 IPC and is under investigation.