BABBAN CHATURVEDI 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 dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on July 3, 2008, under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in short the "Rules of 1991", without conducting departmental enquiry on the ground that on the charges levelled against him, it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner did not file an appeal against the order and has directly approached this Court for setting aside the order on the ground that the facts and circumstances, in which the petitioner is facing a criminal trial under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for being caught for accepting bribe red handed, would not be a ground on which it can be said that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry.

(3.) IT is contended that in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 136A and 137 as follows :