JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.C. Misra, J.—Heard Shri Y.D. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged between the parties and are on record. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being decided at the admission stage in terms of the rules of Court. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was a constable in the civil police and was found involved in charges under Section 302, IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, the petitioner was put under suspension however, he was ultimately acquitted from the aforesaid charges vide Judgment and Order dated 6.5.1999 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) dismissed the petitioner from service without initiating any disciplinary proceeding or after giving any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner invoking the provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 which refers to that if it is not reasonably, practicable and possible to hold departmental inquiry into the conduct of the petitioner, the concerned authority may proceed to pass final order of punishment. It has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner had been acquitted of the criminal charges and there was no other allegation against him on which a disciplinary proceedings could be proceeded with, the natural consequence of the order of acquittal should be that the petitioner should have been reinstated in service. In this respect he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Cap. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 (82) FLR 627 and Babu Lal v. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) SCC page-335. As the petitioner had not been reinstated in service, he preferred the present writ petition on the ground that admittedly the petitioner had not been provided with any opportunity of hearing in defence after being served with show cause notice and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated and was dismissed outright and the said order was wrong, bad and illegal being arbitrary and being in violation of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 3. 3. In the counter affidavit, there is an only bald denial of the above said averments made in para-6 of the writ petition. Nowhere it has been mentioned that any show cause notice was issued or any disciplinary proceedings had been initiated or any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 4. In para-5 of the supplementary affidavit it has been stated by the petitioner that in compliance of the order dated 22.9.1999 of this Court, he had approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, along with a certified copy of the order dated 22.9.1999 as well as a copy of the order by which the petitioner had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in the criminal case. 5. I find that the present impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and the concerned rules and regulations laid down in respect with the petitioner’s services. As per the settled law such order is liable to be quashed being arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and unjustified. 6. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal-dated 24.12.1997 (annexure-2 to the writ petition) is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and shall be paid his entire arrears of salary with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. ————