Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioner-Subhas Chandra Yadav, while posted as a Constable of Civil Police at Po lice Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow, has been dismissed from service vide order dated 24-4-2008 by the Senior Superinten dent of Police, Lucknow without holding any enquiry in exercise of power vested under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Ap peal) Rules, 1991 read with Clause (b) of the Second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Con stitution of India without affording any op portunity of hearing inter alia on the charges which are grave and heinous in nature for which FIR was lodged and on the basis of the FIR, a case crime No. 107 of 2008 under Sec tions 452/354/323/504/506 IPC was registered against the petitioner at police station Alambagh, Lucknow. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the peti tioner while posted in the aforesaid police sta tion as Constable was residing as a tenant along with his family in the house of one Sri Ajit Rajput in Mohalla Bara Barha, police sta tion Alambagh,. Lucknow and on 22-4-2008, while Sri Yogendra Sharma, a Sub- Inspector of Police posted in district Bareilly along with his wife and daughter went to visit to his brother-in-law, namely, Himanshu Pathak, who was also residing in the aforesaid house, at about 1. 30 a. m. , the petitioner came to Himanshu Pathaks residence in an intoxi cated stage and entered his room and started misbehaving with the wife and daughter of the Sri Yogendra Sharma and on being pre vented, the petitioner is alleged to have as saulted and abused Sri Yogendra Sharma and as such, Sri Yogendra Sharma lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner herein was charge-sheeted for commission of the above miscon duct. On the basis of the said allegations alone and without any further material, the oppo site parties had arrived that the petitioner could win over aggrieved people as well as witnesses from giving evidence by threaten ing and other means and as such, in his opin ion there seems to be no need for departmen tal inquiry and accordingly, dismissed the pe titioner from services by the impugned order. 4. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has pre ferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that no enquiry of any sort as mentioned in the impugned order was ever conducted in order even to find out whether there was an iota of truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant being a Sub-Inspector, he had some grudge against the petitioner on account of his brother-in-law and taking advantage of his position as a superior police officer, he in connivance with his brother-in-law concocted the entire story only to somehow force the petitioner to vacate the premises which he was occupying along with Himanshu Pathak. As far as the reason as signed in the impugned order that no person would come forward to give any evidence against the petitioner, he has submitted that the complainant against the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner is only a Constable occupying the lowest post in the police department and as such, the aforesaid reason is not only absolutely flimsy in nature but is a figment of imagination on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Po lice, Lucknow. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that according to Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, Rule 8 (2) (b) of the 1991 Rules gives him the power to dismiss a police officer without conducting any enquiry. In that event also, the impugned order would be rendered illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that as neither Rule 8 (2) (b) of Rules 1991 nor any other provi sion of the said Rules empowers any author ity to dismiss a police officer without con ducting any enquiry. 7. In that event also, the impugned order would be rendered illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that as neither Rule 8 (2) (b) of Rules 1991 nor any other provi sion of the said Rules empowers any author ity to dismiss a police officer without con ducting any enquiry. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the par ties and perused the record, which reveals that the nature of the misconducts committed by the petitioner are of a very grave and heinous in nature and bring a bad name to the police force of the State on the whole but it is not in dispute that in awarding the punishment of dismissal from service, no formal inquiry was held purportedly on the ground that the same enquiry could be dispensed with under pro viso (b) appended to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Sub ordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991, which reads as under : "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or State.- (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of 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 dis missed or removed by an authority subordi nate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank ex cept 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 rep resentation 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 dis miss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied for some reason, to be re corded 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 in terest of the security of the State it is not ex pedient to hold such inquiry. 3. If, in respect of any such person as afore said, a question arises whether it is reason ably practicable to hold such inquiry as it re ferred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or re move such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final. (8) (2) No Police Officer shall be dis missed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceed ings 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 dis miss 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. " 8. " 8. The scheme of the aforesaid provision guarantees an inquiry into the alleged mis conduct of the Government servant as a rule whereas dispensing with the same is an ex ception. Sub clause 2 of Article 311 specifi cally prohibits dismissal, removal or reduc tion in rank of a Government servant without holding any inquiry and without giving him any opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges on which he may be subjected to any of the major punishment. Explanation to the aforesaid rule is; given in the second pro viso wherein sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) do envisage a possibility when a person is dis missed, removed or reduced in rank on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge or where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove or reduce in rank, is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by the authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security by the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. 9. In the instant case, the impugned order of dismissal from service has been passed pur portedly in exercise of power under sub-clause (b) and (c ). For attracting sub-clause (b), it is essential that the authority empow ered to inflict major punishment must feel sat isfied that for some reason or the other, the inquiry cannot be held but that reason also has to be recorded in writing which should indicate that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry unless such a finding is recorded, the order passed under the said pro vision would become bad. The reason so re corded must also be valid and relevant and not merely a camouflage. It is not pure sub jective satisfaction of the authority to dispense with the inquiry but his discretion is circum scribed by the requirement of recording such a reason which of course, has to be a valid reason for which the inquiry cannot be prac ticably held. It is not pure sub jective satisfaction of the authority to dispense with the inquiry but his discretion is circum scribed by the requirement of recording such a reason which of course, has to be a valid reason for which the inquiry cannot be prac ticably held. For example, if a government servant is available, the documents, witnesses or the material on which the inquiry is to be conducted and there is no other legal or prac tical impediment, there would be no reason to dispense with the inquiry and pass the or der of major punishment. 10. Sub-clause (2) of Article 311, which is the substantive provision, does not lay down any exception nor confers any discretion upon the empowered authority of not holding an inquiry into the charge of misconduct against a government servant and to pass order with out affording any opportunity. It is only in the second proviso that an exception is carved out but an exception cannot take a place of rule and has to be applied only in the circum stances given therein and as may be permis sible under the said Article. 11. Rule 8 (2) of 1991 Rules and proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution are akin and it is now a well-settled prin ciple of law that a constitutional right con ferred upon a delinquent cannot be dispensed with lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior or merely in order to avoid to holding of an en quiry. 12. Moreover, the formal enquiry was dis pensed with only on the ground that the peti tioner could win over aggrieved people as well as witnesses from giving evidence by threatening and other means. No material has been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before me to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory author ity was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the de partmental proceedings is not supported by any document. It is further evident that the said order of dismissal was passed, inter alia, on the ground that there was no need for a regular departmental enquiry relying on or on the basis of a preliminary enquiry. However, if a preliminary enquiry could be conducted, I fail to see any reason as to why a formal departmental enquiry could not have been initiated against the petitioner. However, if a preliminary enquiry could be conducted, I fail to see any reason as to why a formal departmental enquiry could not have been initiated against the petitioner. Reliance place upon such a preliminary enquiry without com plying with the minimal requirements of the principle of natural justice is against all cannos fair play and justice. 13. The Senior Superintendent of Police in its order dated 24-4-2008 jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of grave acts of misconduct proving complete unfitness of police service and punishment awarded to him is commensurate with the misconduct although no material therefore was available on record. It is further evident that the Senior Superintendent of Police also misdirected himself in passing the said order insofar as he failed to take into consideration the relevant facts and based his decision on irrelevant factors. 14. In view of the fact that no material had been placed by the opposite parties herein to satisfy the Court that it was necessary to dis pense with a formal enquiry in terms of pro viso (b) appended to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opin ion that the impugned order cannot be sus tained and liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is al lowed. The order of dismissal dated 24-4-2008 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition is hereby set aside. The opposite parties are directed to allow the pe titioner to continue as Constable of Police in District Lucknow and pay him his salary and allowances as and when the same falls. 16. However, in view of the aforesaid find ings, it would be open to the opposite parties to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, if he so desire. Payment of back wages shall abide by the result of such en quiry. Such an enquiry, if any, must be initi ated as expeditiously as possible and not later than two months from the date of communi cation of this order. 17. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .