JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.7.2004 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). 2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 15.2.1988 and in the year 1995, he was posted as Constable-Driver. In the year 1998, he was posted in G.R.P, Lucknow. In June, 2004, he was transferred to 44th Battalion P.A.C Merrut from 12th Battalion P.A.C Fatehpur. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been dismissed from service without holding any departmental enquiry in exercise of power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991 (here-in-after-referred to as Rules). 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the perusal of the impugned order it clearly goes to show that no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the respondent No. 2 and on the basis of some past misconducts the petitioner has been dismissed from service in an arbitrary exercise of discretionary power. It has been submitted that while dismissing the services, the past adverse entries in his character roll and also on the basis of some minor punishments which were awarded to the petitioner in different years at different place of postings have been taken into consideration. It is well settled in law that only on the basis of past entries or punishments a Government servant cannot be dismissed from service. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order does not indicate the immediate reason or any gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner which lead to dismissal of services of petitioner. The impugned order casts a serious stigma upon the petitioner that too has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing, as such, order is in utter violation of the principle of natural justice. The petitioner has not been issued any charge sheet or notice neither any enquiry has been conducted by the respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order of dismissal. There were no fresh serious charges on the basis of which the services of the petitioner cannot be dismissed. Only on the basis of past conduct the services of the petitioner can be dismissed. No enquiry as provided under Rule 14 of the Punishment Rules has been followed. There were no fresh serious charges on the basis of which the services of the petitioner cannot be dismissed. Only on the basis of past conduct the services of the petitioner can be dismissed. No enquiry as provided under Rule 14 of the Punishment Rules has been followed. The order of dismissal has been passed in exercise of power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the aforesaid rule which clearly provides that though there is a power to the authority to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank if satisfied that for the reasons to be recorded by the authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry may dismiss or remove the charged police officer. No reason has been recorded by the authority concerned in the impugned order to the effect that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an enquiry against the petitioner. Only it has been recorded that departmental enquiry is not reasonably practicable against the petitioner because he may threaten the witnesses. The aforesaid observation has been made by the respondents without there being any basis and material before him, only on the basis of presumptions the aforesaid observation has been made. The petitioner being a permanent employee cannot be dismissed from service except after enquiry in which he has to be informed about all the charges against him and has to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The impugned order has been passed against the petitioner in utter violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and as such, cannot be sustained in law. 4. Further submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that there is absolute no serious charges against the petitioner in the impugned order and he has been dismissed from service on the basis of past misconducts for which he has already been awarded punishment. Dismissing the petitioner on the basis of these charges without any enquiry amounts to double jeopardy and the petitioner cannot be awarded punishment twice for the same charges, as such, the order passed by the respondents is in clear violation of the natural justice, and is liable to be quashed. 5. The notices were issued by this Court on 29.11.2007 and the respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit. 5. The notices were issued by this Court on 29.11.2007 and the respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed as such with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of finally. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner while posted in 12th Battalion P.A.C after consuming liquor has threatened one M.T. Abbas and has abused one supervisor Sri Jagdev Narain Singh Yadav and has threatened him for dire consequences. The various incidents regarding the conduct of the petitioner were mentioned. It has further been submitted that petitioner being an employee of disciplined force, it was not expected from him to indulge himself in various incidents like threatening various colleagues after consuming liquor he was involved in an accident and abusing the higher authority and colleagues and indulge in mar-peet. Taking into all these incidents and the conduct of the petitioner, the order has been passed exercising the power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules and there is no illegality in the order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondents that under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules, the disciplinary authority has got full power and jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that a satisfaction to this effect has been recorded that practically it is not possible to hold a departmental enquiry as there is a terror of the petitioner in battalion. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. 9. For the ready reference Rule 8 of U.P. Police Regulation is being reproduced below : “8. Dismissal and removal- (1) No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. 9. For the ready reference Rule 8 of U.P. Police Regulation is being reproduced below : “8. Dismissal and removal- (1) No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. (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.” (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) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends dismissal or removal of a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector shall be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General concerned for orders. (4) (a) The punishment for intentionally or negligently allowing a person in police custody or judicial custody to escape shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing awards a lessor punishment. (b) Every officer convicted by the Court for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers it otherwise.” Bare perusal of the aforesaid rules would go to show that the holding of an enquiry is a rule and dispensing with an enquiry is an exception. Before proceeding to impose in one of the major penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the departmental enquiry is must but in certain contingency the said rigour of the rule can be dispensed with and for that purpose in case it is not reasonably practical to hold enquiry and for these reasons will have to be recorded in writing. 10. 10. This Court in case of Ravindra Raghav v. State of U.P., reported in 2005 (3) A.W.C. 2409 taking a view that the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) are pari materia with second proviso (b) of Article 311 sub-slause (2). Article 311 is being reproduced below : “311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in Civil capacities under the Union or a State- 1. No person who is a member of civil service or the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. 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) 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 inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor , as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in Clause (2) the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in Clause (2) the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final. “ In case of Bhupat Singh Yadav v. State of U.P., reported in 2006(4) ESC, 2303 has taken a view that for invoking the power under second proviso to Rule 8(2)(b) the authority will have to satisfied himself for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry. It is now established principle of law that enquiry under Article 311 (2) is a rule and dispensing with the enquiry is an exception. The authority dispensing with the enquiry under the aforesaid article must satisfy for reasons to be recorded but if the reasons has been recorded then the authority concerned can proceed after dispensing with the enquiry and can pass an order of dismissal or removal. 11. As regards, the contention of the petitioner regarding principle of natural justice it is to be noted that now the Apex Court in various cases has held that following the principle of natural justice is not a straight jacket formula. Power to dispense with an enquiry is conferred for a purpose and to effectuate the proposed power can be exercised. But power is headed with a condition of reasons in writing why power is being exercised. The doctrine of principle of natural justice has no application when the authority concerned is of the opinion that it would be inexpedient to hold an enquiry and that it could be against the interest of security and discipline. In such situation, if from the aforesaid observations of this Court as well as Apex Court it is clear that power can be exercised but a reason to that effect has to be recorded dispensing with the enquiry against the charged employee. 12. From the perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is clear that the authority has been given full jurisdiction to terminate or dismiss a police officer or to remove a person or to reduce him in rank if satisfied reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry may pass an order to dismiss or remove a charged police officer. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that on 3.5.2004 after consuming the liquor, the petitioner abused one N.T. Abbas and has threatened him to kill and on 19.4.2004 again repeated the same incident and for that purpose a proceeding has been initiated under Rule 14 (1) of the Rules, 1991. On 30.6.2004, between 13.00 to 14.00 hours he said the two sweepers Ram Niwas and Om Prakash to bring liquor and at that time they were taking food and at that time the petitioner was also in drunken position. When they refused to bring the liquor, the foods were thrown out by him and they have been threatened to kill by the petitioner. When the petitioner was examined it was found that he had consumed liquor. On 1.7.2004 he has again repeated the same incident. The disciplinary authority while considering all the incidents has also taking into the consideration the previous conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner was a habitual absentee without obtaining any leave by the competent authority and from the record it is also clear that in the earlier years he was absent for 17days, 26 days, 1 day, 14 days and 18 days on various dates. From the order passed by the respondents it is also clear that the respondents have also recorded a finding and satisfaction that due to the aforesaid acts and conducts of the petitioner, it will not be reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry as it is clear from the service record of the petitioner that he is a disobedient habitual of taking liquor and always threatened the colleagues and sweepers to kill them, as such, being in the discipline force retention of such person will not be in the interest of discipline force. If the petitioner is not punished, other employees of the Battalion will be encouraged. Taking into all consideration of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has recorded a finding that he is satisfied that retaining the petitioner in service will not be in the interest of police force for the purposes of maintaining the discipline and will also not be in the interest of public. Taking into all consideration of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has recorded a finding that he is satisfied that retaining the petitioner in service will not be in the interest of police force for the purposes of maintaining the discipline and will also not be in the interest of public. A finding to this effect has also been recorded that holding an enquiry against the petitioner is not reasonable practicably possible, as such, in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 1991 Rule 8(2)(b) after recording a self-satisfaction has passed the impugned order dated 12.7.2004. 13. There is no dispute to this effect that the authority has been empowered under the aforesaid rule to exercise the power conferred under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Police Regulation but satisfaction to that effect has to be recorded while exercising such power. In my opinion, the petitioner being a member of discipline force has to maintain the discipline but from the record it is clear that petitioner is habitual of drinking liquor and several times he has beaten the various colleagues as well as the sweepers and was also habitual absentee without any sanction of leave, as such, in my opinion, such employee who is a member of disciplined force, is not entitled to be retained in service. The contention of the petitioner to this effect that no satisfaction as provided under Rule 8(2)(b) has been recorded is not correct. After perusal of the order it is clear that taking into all the facts, circumstances and conduct of the petitioner, the order has been passed after recording a finding in consonance with Rule 8(2)(b). 14. In my opinion there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondents. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————