YADUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant aggrieved by order dated 3.8.2009, passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. WRIT Petition No. 39360 of 2009 has preferred this appeal under Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant is a constable and by order dated 15.5.2008, passed by Superintendent of Police (Railways), Agra, he has been dismissed from service. Before dismissal of the writ petitioner-appellant, no inquiry was held as in the opinion of the disciplinary authority the holding of the departmental inquiry was not just and practicable. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the disciplinary authority has held that if a detailed departmental inquiry is conducted, writ petitioner-appellant has to be continued in service which will have an adverse effect on the morale of the other police personnel. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner-appellant had an alternative remedy.

(3.) THE provisions contained under Rule 8 (2) (b) have been incorporated keeping in view the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. THE power conferred on the authority to dispense with an inquiry in a given situation where it is reasonably not practicable to hold an inquiry, has been envisaged therein. THE Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Tulsi Ram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, had the occasion to consider the scope of the aforesaid provision and the Apex Court laid down the test of reasonableness in the said case to be reflected by the authority while proposing to dispense with an inquiry. Paragraph No. 130 of the said decision is reproduced below :