SUBHAS CHANDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) PETITIONER-Subhas Chandra Yadav, while posted as a Constable of Civil Police at Po lice Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow, has been dismissed from service vide order dated 24-4-2008 by the Senior Superinten dent of Police, Lucknow without holding any enquiry in exercise of power vested under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Ap peal) Rules, 1991 read with Clause (b) of the Second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Con stitution of India without affording any op portunity of hearing inter alia on the charges which are grave and heinous in nature for which FIR was lodged and on the basis of the FIR, a case crime No. 107 of 2008 under Sec tions 452/354/323/504/506 IPC was registered against the petitioner at police station Alambagh, Lucknow.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant being a Sub-Inspector, he had some grudge against the petitioner on account of his brother-in-law and taking advantage of his position as a superior police officer, he in connivance with his brother-in-law concocted the entire story only to somehow force the petitioner to vacate the premises which he was occupying along with Himanshu Pathak. As far as the reason as signed in the impugned order that no person would come forward to give any evidence against the petitioner, he has submitted that the complainant against the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner is only a Constable occupying the lowest post in the police department and as such, the aforesaid reason is not only absolutely flimsy in nature but is a figment of imagination on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Po lice, Lucknow.