COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 694/2002 Devendra Prasad Dobhal …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Home & Other ……Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. 5th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 19.6.2002, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Police Constable. 2. The petitioner was appointed after due selection and sent to undergo the training at Training Centre, Pauri Garhwal. After completion of six months’ training, the petitioner was posted as Constable at Police Chowki Dhara, Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun for further three months’ practical training. The petitioner was suspended on 17.6.2002 on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were pending against him as on 16.6.2002, the petitioner along with two other constables, in drunken stage, had beaten to one Rakesh Vema and a journalist Rakesh Dobhal. Thereafter, during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19.6.2002 2 invoking the powers conferred under clause (b) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 8 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the said rules is reproduced as under: “8(2) No police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules: Provided that this rule shall not apply— (a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry; or (c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry.” 3. The above provision is akin to provisions contained under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It is now settled law that while exercising the powers under such provisions, the reasons have to be recorded in writing on 3 which the authority satisfied that the enquiry is not reasonably practicable. 4. I have gone through the impugned order. I find that only misconduct and events have been narrated and thereafter straightway power has been exercised. In the impugned order, there is no mention regarding the reasons which enabled the authority to be satisfied that the enquiry was not reasonably practicable. Reliance is placed on the case of Union of India & Another v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398. 5. Since the impugned order does not contain the reasons as to how the disciplinary enquiry was not reasonably practicable, therefore, the order is in violation of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the said rules. Thus the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Writ of certiorari is issued. Impugned order dated 19.6.2002 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh