UMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 16.2.2005 passed by learned Single Bench in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 29594 of 2003 (Umesh Chandra Vs State of UP and others), whereby he declined to interfere in the order dated 5.6.2003 dismissing the appellant-petitioner from service.

(2.) In brief, the appellant-petitioner was appointed as Constable in Civil Police and at the relevant time, he was posted at Police Station Fazalganj, District Kanpur Nagar. On 3.5.2003, two accused are said to have ran away from custody of appellant-petitioner, while being taken to the Civil Court, Kanpur Nagar. Resultantly, appellant-petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry vide order dated 3.5.2003. On 5.6.2003, appellant-petitioner was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar exercising power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishments and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1991). The said order was challenged by the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Bench, wherein learned Single Bench came to the conclusion that the reasons given by the authority for dispensing with the enquiry are valid and the satisfaction recorded by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be either unjustified or unwarranted vide order dated 16.2.2005. Against the said order, present Special Appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police is illegal and arbitrary. The appellant had been dismissed from service without holding any regular departmental enquiry. The same is in violation of the statutory provisions and there was no material before the Disciplinary Authority for arriving at any subjective satisfaction to dispense with the enquiry. There was no occasion to hold that enquiry into the matter is neither reasonable nor practicably possible. On this count, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider this aspect of the matter and has wrongly held that the reasons given by the authority for dispensing with the enquiry is perfectly valid and satisfaction recorded by him cannot be said to be faulted with.