# Subodh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 454
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-06-12
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subodh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41540
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(Punishment of Appeal) Rules, 1991Rule 8 (2) (6)-Dismissal from Servicewithout holding enquiry-challenged on
ground
no
reasons
recorded
for
satisfaction
of
disperse
with
departmental enquiry-petitioner Police
Constable-working
as
member
of
Security squad-in North East Expressinstead of providing help-indulged in
beating the passenger, robbed them,
behaved indecently with women and
fired with Government rifle-on protest of
passenger at the interference of District
Magistrate and other Higher District
Authority-the situation normalized-No
denial of allegations-finding about no
possibility to hold enquiry and dismissal
do not suffer from any error of law.

Held: Para 13

The
reasons
recorded
by
the
Superintendent of Police, Railway, Agra
as
disciplinary
authority,
in
the
prevailing situation, finding that it was
not
reasonably
practicable
to
hold
disciplinary enquiry, do not suffer from
any error of law. He has applied his mind
to the relevant facts and has recorded
2 All] Subodh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
455
good and sufficient reasons to exercise
the authority vested in him to dismiss
the petitioner from service under Rule 8
(2) (b) of the Rules of 1991.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1985 SC 1416.

## Text

454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

12. The observation in the order of
the disciplinary authority, that Rule 4(a)
fo the Rules of 1991 provides for major
penalty on the misconduct and allowing a
prisoner to escape, is wholly misplaced.
Such punishment can be awarded only
after the police officer is found guilty of
negligence in allowing the prisoner to
escape. The finding in this regard can be
given only after a departmental enquiry.

13. The Supreme Court and this
Court have repeatedly held that whenever
power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of
1991 is to be exercised, the disciplinary
authority must be very cautious and must
record
satisfaction
on
the
material
collected by him in writing and give
reasons, which may be subject to judicial
review about the necessity in public
interest to dispense with the enquiry and
to dismiss the delinquent employee. In the
present case the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Kanpur Nagar has committed
patent error in recording such satisfaction.
The facts and circumstances do not justify
the reasons and the conclusions drawn by
him.

14. The writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 21.11.2007, 30.6.2008 and
25.9.2008 are set aside. The respondents
are directed to reinstate the petitioner with
all consequential benefits, and with liberty
to initiate departmental enquiry against
him in accordance with Rules of 1991.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.06.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44867 Of
2008

Subodh Kumar

...Petitioner

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Gautam

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Niraj Upadhyay
S.C.

U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank
(Punishment of Appeal) Rules, 1991Rule 8 (2) (6)-Dismissal from Servicewithout holding enquiry-challenged on
ground
no
reasons
recorded
for
satisfaction
of
disperse
with
departmental enquiry-petitioner Police
Constable-working
as
member
of
Security squad-in North East Expressinstead of providing help-indulged in
beating the passenger, robbed them,
behaved indecently with women and
fired with Government rifle-on protest of
passenger at the interference of District
Magistrate and other Higher District
Authority-the situation normalized-No
denial of allegations-finding about no
possibility to hold enquiry and dismissal
do not suffer from any error of law.

Held: Para 13

The
reasons
recorded
by
the
Superintendent of Police, Railway, Agra
as
disciplinary
authority,
in
the
prevailing situation, finding that it was
not
reasonably
practicable
to
hold
disciplinary enquiry, do not suffer from
any error of law. He has applied his mind
to the relevant facts and has recorded
2 All] Subodh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
455
good and sufficient reasons to exercise
the authority vested in him to dismiss
the petitioner from service under Rule 8
(2) (b) of the Rules of 1991.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1985 SC 1416.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

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 posted at Police Station,
Government Railway Police, Aligarh. He
was dismissed from service by the
Superintendent of Police, Railways, Agra
under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police
Officers
of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in
short the Rules of 1991) after recording
reasons that it was not reasonably
practicable to hold a departmental enquiry
against him. The petitioner has challenged
the order on the ground, that the reasons,
given for holding that it was not
reasonably
practicable
to
hold
the
departmental enquiry, do not satisfy the
test of invoking such powers on the
principles
of
law
laid
down
by
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR
1985 SC 1416.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ
petition are that on 23.8.2008 the
petitioner was deputed as a member of
security squad in North East Express from
Railway Station Delhi to Railway Station
Kanpur, with a government rifle and 30
cartridges. His duties required him to
protect the persons and property of the
passenger in the train; to curb the illegal
activities of the criminals and anti social
elements; to provide help to the persons in
case of any incident or accident and
specially to help the women and children
providing them safety and security. It was
reported that the petitioner, while on duty
in the train instead of carrying out his
responsibilities,
indulged
in
beating
passengers;
robbed
them;
behaved
indecently with the women and fired on
them
from
government
rifle.
The
passengers travelling in the train were
angered by the conduct of the petitioner.
They stopped the train at Railway Station
Phaphund, District Auraiya. The entire
rail traffic was stopped and was affected
for about three hours. The District
Magistrate,
Auraiya
and
the
Superintendent of Police, Auraiya had to
reach
the
spot
to
control
the
demonstration by the passengers of the
train. They could, with great difficulty,
pacify the passengers and restored the rail
traffic.

4. A report of the incident was
lodged by complainant Shri Mukhtar son
of Shri Niyamak resident of Village and
Post Jaitakhanai Police Station Raniganj
District Auraria, Bihar and was registered
as as Case Crime No. 105 of 2008 Police
Station G.R.P. Etawah in which the loot
of Rs. 37,750/- from 27 passengers was
reported as robbery under Section 394
IPC and is under investigation.

5. In the order dated 24.8.2008, the
Superintendent of Police, Railways has
observed that the police is a disciplined
department in which every member of the
force takes oath to protect and help
citizens; maintain the reputation and
follow the rules of the department. The
petitioner misused his position as a police
man. Instead of protecting the passengers
he tortured them both mentally and
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
physically and robbed them. If the
policemen appointed to protect the
citizens start robbing them, the people
will loose their faith in the police
department and the criminal justice
system of the country. The petitioner not
only committed a crime of robbing the
passengers but also fired on them from
the government rifle assigned to him. The
act was so dangerous that any of the
innocent persons could have lost his life.
His conduct was wholly unbecoming of a
conduct of a government servant on duty.

6. The Superintendent of Police
thereafter observed that the persons
travelling in the train were extremely poor
and were helpless labourers, who earn
their livelihood by working at different
places of the country. The snatching of
the money from such persons is a very sad
incident. The passengers had to suffer
irreparable, mental and physical torture.
The petitioner not only indulged in illegal
activity but that because of him the entire
rail traffic on Delhi-Kanpur route was
obstructed
for
three
hours
causing
national loss and delaying the journey of
thousands of passengers.

7. The Superintendent of Police has
thereafter given the reasons in coming to
conclusion that it is not reasonably
practicable to hold a departmental enquiry
in the matter as follows:-

1. The passengers, who were robbed
and
subjected
to
beating
and
indiscipline
behavior
by
the
petitioners, are all residents of far
away States and it is not possible to
secure
their
presence
in
the
departmental enquiry.

2. The victims are extremely poor and
helpless persons. They have already
been
tortured
mentally
and
physically and thus it will be difficult
to procure their presence in a
departmental enquiry conducted by
the same department.

3. It is possible that the petitioner as a
police man will use in position to
unduly influence the independent
evidence
to
be
led
in
the
departmental enquiry.

4. The petitioner, after committing the
act and going back to his duties, left
the place without any information
after leaving rifle and cartridges in
the barrack. This fact was reported
in the report No. 19 at 11.30 on
24.8.2008. His absence from duties
was to avoid the departmental
enquiry.

5. A criminal case No. 265 of 2000
under Sections 147/452/342/323/506
IPC was registered against the
petitioner while he was posted at
Agra in the year 2000 and that this is
the second criminal act of the
petitioner
establishing
that
the
petitioner is a man of criminal
character.

8. It is observed in the order that the
act of the petitioner is criminal in nature
and it is always possible that he will
repeat such acts. He has already
tarnished the image of the police
department in public, which is difficult to
repair.
In
the
circumstances
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Railway
recorded his satisfaction that it was not
reasonably
practicable
to
hold
a
2 All] Subodh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
457
departmental
enquiry
against
the
petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has been
dismissed on the ground of dereliction of
duty which could not be treated as a
serious act of misconduct. The reasons
given to dispense with the enquiry are
artificial, and are the result of an alleged
incident, which was never subjected to
any enquiry. In the writ petition it is
stated that the petitioner was carrying out
his duties to search and interrogate the
persons on a suspicion that they were
carrying illegal substance like bombs and
other such materials. There was a suspect
with a long beard, with suspicious
activities. When the petitioner started
interrogating the persons and tried to
search
their
luggage,
the
men
accompanying him and some women in
veil made a complaint that the petitioner
was misbehaving with them. They tried to
assault the petitioner on which the train
was stopped at the Railway Station
Phaphund
in
District
Auraiya.
The
petitioner came to know through the first
information report that one Shri Mukhtar
son of Shri Niyamak resident of Village
and Post Jaitakhanai Police Station
Raniganj District Araria, Bihar had
lodged the first information report against
him. No enquiry was made of the
incident. Shri Gautam submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the crime.

10. 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, 136-A and 137 as follows:

130. The condition precedent for the
application
of
clause
(b)
is
the
satisfaction of the disciplinary authority
that "it is not reasonably practicable to
hold" the inquiry contemplated by clause
(2) of Article 311. What is pertinent to
note is that the words used are "not
reasonably
practicable"
and
not
"impracticable". According to to the
Oxford English Dictionary "practicable"
means "Capable of being put into
practice, carried out in action, effected,
accomplished,
or
done;feasible".
Webster's
Third
New
International
Dictionary defines the word "practicable"
inter alia as meaning "possible to
practice or perform.: capable of being put
into practice, done or accomplished:
feasible". Further, the words used are not,
".not practicable" but "not reasonably
practicable".
Webster's
Third
New
International Dictionary defines the word
"reasonably" as "in a reasonable manner:
to a fairly sufficient extent". Thus,
whether it was practicable to hold the
inquiry or not must be judged in the
context of whether it was reasonably
practicable to do so. It is not a total or
absolute
impracticability
which
is
required by clause (b). What is requisite
is that the holding of the inquiry is not
practicable in the opinion of a reasonable
man taking a. reasonable view of the
prevailing situation. 'It is not possible to
enumerate the cases in which it would not
be reasonably practicable to hold the
inquiry, but some instances by way of
illustration may, however, be given. It
would not be reasonably practicable to
hold an inquiry where the government
servant, particularly through or together,
with
his
associates,
so
terrorizes,
threatens or intimidate witnesses who are
going to give evidence against him with
fear of reprisal as to prevent them from
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
doing so or where the government servant
by himself or. together with. or through
others
threatens,
intimidates
and
terrorizes
the
officer
who
is
the
disciplinary authority or members of his
family so that he is afraid to hold the
inquiry or direct it to be held. It would
also not be reasonably practicable to hold
the inquiry where an atmosphere of
violence or of general indiscipline and
insubordination
prevails,
and
it
is
immaterial
whether
the
concerned
government servant is or is not a party to
bringing about such an atmosphere. In
this connection, we must bear in mind that
numbers coerce and terrify while an
individual may not. The reasonable
practicability of holding an inquiry is a
matter of assessment to be made by the
disciplinary authority. Such authority is
generally on the spot and knows what is
happening. It is because the disciplinary
authority is the best judge of this that
clause (3) of Article 311 makes the
decision of the disciplinary authority on
this
question
final.
A
disciplinary
authority is not expected to dispense with
a
disciplinary
inquiry
lightly
or
arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or
merely. in order to avoid the holding of
an inquiry or because the Department's
case against the government servant is
weak and must fail. The finality given to
the decision of the disciplinary authority
by Article 311(3) is not binding upon the
court so far as its power of judicial review
is concerned and in such case the court
will strike down the order dispensing with
the inquiry as also the order imposing
penalty. The case of Arjun Chaubey v.
Union of India (1984) 3 SCR 302 : (AIR
1984 SC 1356) is an instance in point. In
that ase, the appellant. was working as a
senior clerk in the office of the Chief
Commercial
Superintendent,
Northern
Railway,
Varanasi.
The
Senior
Commercial Officer wrote a letter o the
appellant calling upon him to submit his
explanation with regard to twelve charges
of gross indiscipline mostly relating to the
Deputy
Chief
Commercial
Superintendent. The appellant. submitted
his explanation and on .the very next day
the
Deputy
Chief
Commercial
Superintendent served a second notice on
the appellant saying that his explanation
was not convincing and that another
chance was, being given to him to offer
his explanation with respect to those
charges. The appellant submitted his
further explanation but on the very next
day
the
Deputy
Chief
Commercial
Superintendent
passed
an
order
dismissing him on the ground that he was
not fit to be retained in service. This
Court struck down the order holding that
seven out of twelve charges related to the
conduct of the appellant with the Deputy
Chief Commercial Superintendent who
was the disciplinary authority and that if
an inquiry were to be held, the principal
witness for the Department would have
been the Deputy Chief Commercial
Superintendent himself, resulting in the
same person being the main accuser, the
chief. witness and also the judge of the
matter.
131. It was submitted that where a
delinquent
government
servant
so
terrorizes the disciplinary authority that
neither. that officer nor any other officer
stationed at that place is willing to hold
the inquiry, some senior officer can be
sent from outside to hold the inquiry. This
submission itself shows that in such a
case the holding of an inquiry is not
reasonably practicable. It would be
illogical to hold that the administrative
work carried out by senior officers should
be paralysed because a delinquent
2 All] Subodh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
459
government servant either by himself or
along with or through others makes the
holding. of an inquiry not reasonably
practicable.
132. It is not necessary that a situation
which makes the holding of an inquiry not
reasonably
practicable
should
exist
before the disciplinary inquiry is initiated
against a government servant. Such a
situation can also come into existence
subsequently during the course of an
inquiry, for instance, after the service of a
charge-sheet
upon
the
government
servant or after he has filed his written
statement thereto or even after evidence
has been led in part. In such a case also
the disciplinary authority would be
entitled to apply clause (b) of the second
proviso because the word "inquiry" in
that clause includes part of an inquiry. It
would also not be reasonably practicable
to afford to the government servant an
opportunity of hearing or further hearing,
as the case may be, when at the
commencement of the inquiry or pending
it the government servant absconds and
cannot. be served or will not participate
in the inquiry. In such cases, the matter
must proceed ex parte and on the
materials
before
the
disciplinary
authority. Therefore, even where a part of
an inquiry has been held and the rest is
dispensed with under clause (b) or a
provision in the service rules analogous
thereto, the exclusionary words of the
second proviso operate in their full vigour
and the government servant cannot
complain that he has been dismissed,
removed or reduced in rank in violation
of the safeguards provided by Article
311(2).
133. The second condition necessary for
the valid application of clause (b) of the
second proviso is that the disciplinary
authority should record in writing its
reason for its satisfaction that it was not
reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry
contemplated by Article 311(2). This is a
Constitutional obligation and if such
reason is not recorded in writing, the
order dispensing with the inquiry and the
order of penalty following thereupon
would both be void and unconstitutional.
134. It is obvious that the recording in
writing of the reason for dispensing with
the inquiry must precede the order
imposing the penalty. The reason for
dispensing with the inquiry need not,
therefore find a place in the final order. It
would be usual, to record the reason
separately and then consider the question
of the penalty to be imposed and pass the
order imposing the penalty. It would,
however, be better to record the reason in
the final order in order to avoid the
allegation that the reason was not
recorded in writing before passing. the
final
order
but
was
subsequently
fabricated. The reason for dispensing with
the inquiry need not contain detailed
particulars, but the reason must not be
vague or just a repetition of the language
of clause (b) of the second proviso. For
instance, it would be no compliance with
the requirement of clause (b) for the
disciplinary authority simply to state that
he was satisfied that it was not reasonably
practicable
to
hold
any
inquiry.
Sometimes a situation may be such that it
is not reasonably practicable to give
detailed reasons for dispensing with the
inquiry. This would not, however, per se
invalidate the order. Each case must be
judged on its own merits and in the light
of its own facts and circumstances.
135. It was vehemently contended that if
reasons are not recorded in the final
order, they must be communicated to the
concerned government servant to enable
him to challenge the validity of the
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
reasons in a departmental appeal or
before a court of law and that failure to
communicate
the
reasons
would
invalidate the order. This contention too
cannot be accepted. The constitutional
requirement in clause (b) is that the
reason for dispensing with the inquiry
should be recorded in writing. There is no
obligation to communicate the reason to
the government servant. At clause (3) of
Article 311 makes the decision of the
disciplinary authority on this point final,
the question cannot be agitated in a
departmental appeal, revision or review.,
The obligation to record the reason in
writing is provided in clause (b) so that
the superiors of the disciplinary authority
may be able to judge whether such
authority had exercised its power under
clause (b) properly or not with a view to
judge the performance and capacity of
that officer for the purposes of promotion
etc. It would however, be better for the
disciplinary authority to communicate to
the government servant its reason for
dispensing with the inquiry because such
communication
would
eliminate
the
possibility of an allegation being made
that the reasons have been subsequently
fabricated. It would also enable the
government servant to approach the High
Court under Article 226 or, in a fit case,
this Court under Article 32. If the reasons
are not communicated to the government
servant and the matter comes to the court,
the court can direct the reasons to be
produced,
and
famished
to
the
government servant and if still not
produced, a presumption should be drawn
that the reasons were not recorded in
writing and the impugned order would
then stand invalidated. Such presumption
can,
however,
be
rebutted
by
a
satisfactory explanation for the nonproduction of the written reasons.
136. It was next submitted that though
clause (b) of the second proviso excludes
an inquiry into the charges made against
a government servant, it does not exclude
an inquiry preceding it, namely. an
inquiry into whether the disciplinary
inquiry should be dispensed with or not,
and that in such a preliminary inquiry the
government servant should be given an
opportunity of a hearing by issuing to him
a notice to show cause why the inquiry
should not be dispensed with so as to
enable him to satisfy the disciplinary
authority that it would be reasonably
practicable to hold the inquiry. This
argument
is
illogical
and
is
a
contradiction in terms. If an inquiry into
the charges against a government servant
is not reasonably practicable, it stands to
reason that an inquiry into the. question
whet her the disciplinary inquiry should
be dispensed with or not is equally not
reasonably practicable.
136A. A government servant who has
been dismissed, removed or reduced in
rank by applying to his case clause (b) or
an-analogous provision of a service rule
is not wholly without a remedy. As
pointed out earlier while dealing with the
various service rules. he can claim in a
departmental appeal or revision that an
inquiry be held with respect to the
charges on which the penalty of dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank has been
imposed upon him unless the same or a
similar situation prevails at the time of
hearing of the appeal or revision
application. If the same situation is
continuing or a similar situation arises, it
would not then be reasonably practicable
to hold an inquiry at the time of the
hearing of the appeal or revision. Though
in such a ease as the government servant
if dismissed or removed from service, is
not continuing in service and it reduced in
2 All] Subodh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
461
rank, is continuing in service. with such
reduced rank, no prejudice could be
caused to the Government or the
Department if the hearing of an appeal or
revision application, as the case may be,
is postponed for a reasonable time.
137. Where a government servant is
dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by
applying clause (b) or an analogous
provision of the service rules and he
approaches either the High Court under
Article 226 or this Court under Article 32,
the court will interfere on grounds well
established in law for the exercise of
power of judicial review in matters where
administrative discretion is exercised. It
will consider whether clause (b) or an
analogous provision in the service rules
was property applied or not. The finality
given by clause (3) of Article 311 to the
disciplinary' authority's 'decision that it
was not reasonably practicable to hold
the inquiry s not binding upon the court.
The court will also examine the charge
of malafides, if any made in the writ
petition. In examining the relevancy of
the reasons, the court will consider the
situation
which
according
to
the
disciplinary authority made it come to
the conclusion that it was not reasonably
practicable to hold the inquiry. If the
court
finds
that
the
reasons
are
irrelevant, then the recording of its
satisfaction by the disciplinary authority
would be an abuse of power conferred
upon it by clause (b) and would take the
case out of the purview of that clause
and the impugned order of penalty would
stand invalidated. In considering the
relevancy of the reasons given by the
disciplinary authority the court will not,
however, sit in judgment over them like a
court of first appeal. In older to decide
whether the reasons are germane to
clause (b),, the court must put itself in
the place of the disciplinary authority
and consider what in the then prevailing
situation a reasonable man acting in a
reasonable way would have done. The
matter will have to be judged in the light
of the then prevailing situation and not
as if the disciplinary authority was
deciding the question whether the
inquiry should be dispensed with or not
in the cool and detached atmosphere of a
courtroom, removed in time, from the
situation in question. Where two views
are possible, the court will decline to
interfere."

11. In the present case the
Superintendent of Police, Railways has,
after narrating the facts of the incident,
given reasons to dispense with the
departmental enquiry and has found that it
was not reasonably practicable to hold a
departmental enquiry. The nature of
incident, in which the petitioner as a
constable on squad duty, misbehaved with
the passengers and robbed them and
thereafter fired upon them with the
government weapon on which the train
was stopped at Police Station Phaphund,
for three hours and that the railway traffic
could be resumed only on the intervention
of
the
District
Magistrate
and
Superintendent of Police, Auraiya, was a
serious act of indiscipline. A police
officer on squad duty is required to
provide security and safety to the
passengers. If he himself starts extracting
money and looting the passengers and
starts firing to terrorise them and to stop
them from making protest, the law and
order will completely break down. The
passengers, while travelling in a train, are
mostly travelling alone helpless against
criminals and anti social elements. They
have to be protected by the State. In a
case where the constables deputed in a
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
squad to protect them become criminals
and start looting the passengers, they will
not be left with any safety at all.

12. The reasons given in the order
that it will be difficult to secure the
presence of the poor people, or victims of
the crime committed on them, to be called
from far away States and that they would
not have faith in an enquiry conducted by
the police against one of their constables,
that petitioner will use his influence and
that the conduct of the petitioner in
leaving the barracks after the incident
without information, were sufficient to
dispense with the departmental enquiry.
The petitioner has not denied that he had
fired from government weapon and that
the
passengers
did
not
resort
to
demonstration on which the train traffic
was stopped for three hours at the next
Railway Station. His explanation, that he
was searching for suspicious activities of
the passengers, is not only vague but
appears to be a story set up to cover the
crime committed by him. He does not say
that he had reported such activity to his
superior
officers.
The
demonstration
made by the angry passengers and the
intervention of the District Magistrate and
the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya
were sufficient proof of the incident. The
nature of the incident and the gravity of
the situation on the spot were taken into
consideration
by
the
disciplinary
authority. The tests laid down in Tulsi
Ram Patel's case to dispense with the
departmental enquiry, to record the
finding
that
it
is
not
reasonably
practicable to hold the enquiry, are fully
satisfied.

13. The reasons recorded by the
Superintendent of Police, Railway, Agra
as disciplinary authority, in the prevailing
situation,
finding
that
it
was
not
reasonably practicable to hold disciplinary
enquiry, do not suffer from any error of
law. He has applied his mind to the
relevant facts and has recorded good and
sufficient reasons to exercise the authority
vested in him to dismiss the petitioner
from service under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the
Rules of 1991.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JANARDAN SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE Y.K. SANGAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23662 of 2009

Ramendra Srivastava
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Singh
Sri Ashwani K. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pushpendra Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226-Post
Office-whether Agent of addressee or
sender?-petitioner qualified preliminary
examination
Combined
State
Lower
Subordinate
Examination
2007petitioner send complete form for main
examination through speed post on
28.3.2007, reached on 1.4.2007 returned
by commission on ground according
terms of advertisement -form should be
reached upto 5 P.M. on 31.2.2007
Registered post or by hand to handwhere two options are open post office
can not be agent of addressee -but on
equity-petitioner
passed
pre-