# Jawahar Singh v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 532
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48095 of 2002
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jawahar-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-40163
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 311 (2) (b)-
U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules,
1991, Rule 8 (2) (b)- dismissal- order ofnot reasons disclosed for not holding
departmental enquiring-Held-such order,
illegal.

Held-Para 5

A perusal of the dismissal order will
demonstrate that it does not disclose any
reason whatsoever as to why holding of
the departmental enquiry against the
charges leveled on the petitioner is not
possible. In this view of the matter, this
writ petition deserves to be allowed and
the
impugned
order
of
dismissal
deserves to be quashed.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
532
experiment may be fraught with serious
consequences to the Nation."(see also
'The Legacy of Holmes and Brandeis' by
Samuel Kanefsky).

As Mr. Justice Holmes of the U.S.
Supreme Court observed in his dissenting
judgment in Tyson v. Banton, 273 US 418
(at p 447):

" I am far from saying that I think
this particular law a wise and rational
provision. That is not my affair. But if the
people of the State of New York speaking
by their authorized voice say they want it,
I see nothing in the Constitution of the
United States to prevent their having their
will."
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48095 of 2002

Jawahar Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 311 (2) (b)-
U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules,
1991, Rule 8 (2) (b)- dismissal- order ofnot reasons disclosed for not holding
departmental enquiring-Held-such order,
illegal.

Held-Para 5

A perusal of the dismissal order will
demonstrate that it does not disclose any
reason whatsoever as to why holding of
the departmental enquiry against the
charges leveled on the petitioner is not
possible. In this view of the matter, this
writ petition deserves to be allowed and
the
impugned
order
of
dismissal
deserves to be quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The petitioner, who was a police
constable in U.P. Police, by means of
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, has challenged
the dismissal order dated 3rd August,
2002, copy whereof is annexed as
Annexure-'1'
to
the
writ
petition,
whereby the petitioner has been dismissed
from service on different charges.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and the learned
Standing
Counsel
representing
the
Respondents.

3. The authority in exercise of power
under Article 311 (2) (b) of the
Constitution of India, read with Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991, read with Rule 8 (2)
(b), has passed the aforesaid order of
dismissal. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule
and the provision of Article 311 (2) (b),
clearly demonstrate that the punishing
authority can dispense with the holding of
departmental enquiry, if it comes to the
conclusion that it is not possible to hold
an enquiry for the reasons stated in the
aforesaid clause. The provision of Article
311 (2) (b) is reproduced below :-

"311.
Dismissal,
removal
or
reduction in rank of persons employed
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Jawahar Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
533
in civil capacities under the Union or a
State----
(1) ......................
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be
dismissed or removed or reduced in rank
except after an inquiry in which he has
been informed of the charges against him
and given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in respect of those charges.

Provided that where it is proposed
after such inquiry, to impose upon him
any such penalty, such penalty may be
imposed on the basis of the evidence
adduced during such inquiry and it shall
not be necessary to give such person any
opportunity of making representation on
the penalty proposed :

Provided further that this clause shall
not apply.........

(a) ................
(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 inquiry."

4. Similar the provision of Rule 8
(2) (b) of the 1991 Rules is also
reproduced here-in-below :-

"Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of
the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1991----

8.
Dismissal and removal :-
(1) ...................
(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) ..................

(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 inquiry."

5. A perusal of the dismissal order
will demonstrate that it does not disclose
any reason whatsoever as to why holding
of the departmental enquiry against the
charges leveled on the petitioner is not
possible. In this view of the matter, this
writ petition deserves to be allowed and
the impugned order of dismissal deserves
to be quashed.

6. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The order dated 3rd August,
2002, Annexure-'1' to the writ petition, is
quashed. However, it will be open for the
Respondents to hold a regular enquiry and
may take action against the petitioner in
accordance with law after affording him
an opportunity of hearing. There will be
no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 09.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40476 of 1998

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal(5),
Meerut and another
...Respondents

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in