Judgment Heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the State. 2. The petitioner is a Head Constable in the police department and his services has been dispensed with by an order dated 18th January, 2006 by invoking the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1991) on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry and that the petitioner would influence the witnesses. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the respondent no. 3, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2006. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the respondent no. 2 by the petitioner and the said revision was also dismissed. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the authority has passed the impugned order on the basis of some report. Since the said report were not available before this Court, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents was directed to produce the record. The record has been produced and a perusal of the report indicates that an incident had taken place where a person under the custody of the petitioner had died and, on this basis, the authority opined that it was not reasonable practicable to hold an inquiry. 4. In my opinion, the respondents has taken an easy way out from not holding an enquiry by invoking the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991. For facility, the Rules 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 is extracted hereunder:- “8.(2)(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. The language of the aforesaid rule is similar to the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In Union of India & another Vs. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416, the Supreme Court held as under:- “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……….. In Union of India & another Vs. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416, the Supreme Court held as under:- “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……….. “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” “……………….The reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority.” “………………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 second condition necessary for the valid application of clause (b) of the second provision 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. It is obvious that the recording in writing of the reason for dispensing with the inquiry must precede the order imposing the penalty.” 6. The Supreme Court further went on to say:- “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 if by clause (b) and would take the case out of the purview of that clause and the impugned order of penalty would stand invalidated.” 7. In Chief Security Officer & others Vs. Singasan Rabi Das 1991 (1) SCC 729, the Supreme Court has held that since there was a total absence of sufficient material or good ground for dispensing with the inquiry, the order of termination dispensing with the inquiry was illegal. In Constable 268 A.P. Dharmendra Rathi Vs. In Chief Security Officer & others Vs. Singasan Rabi Das 1991 (1) SCC 729, the Supreme Court has held that since there was a total absence of sufficient material or good ground for dispensing with the inquiry, the order of termination dispensing with the inquiry was illegal. In Constable 268 A.P. Dharmendra Rathi Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others *2009 (2) Uttaranchal Decision 451, this court has held that the authority must give a subjective satisfaction to come to a conclusion that it was not a reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. In Bishambher Singh Bhadoria & etc. Vs. State of U.P. & others 2008 (6) A.L.J. 320, the Allahabad High Court held that the exercise of power by the authority by invoking the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 was totally arbitrary and that the order of termination of services could not be sustained. 8. In the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the authority has wrongly invoked the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991. In my opinion, the authority has exercised this provision arbitrarily and has taken an escape route by dispensing the services of the petitioner instead of initiating a regular inquiry. This court finds that the charges mentioned in the report are not such, which could not be inquired through a departmental inquiry. It is not a case where it could be said that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the respondents in invoking the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 was wholly arbitrary. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 9. The authority is directed to initiate an inquiry and pass a final order within six months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be reinstated in service, but, would remain under suspension, Further, the petitioner will not be entitled for any salary from the date of dismissal till the date when final orders are passed and that the authority will pass the order on the question of the payment of salary while passing the order of penalty, if any. It is also made clear that till the pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allowance as per Rules from today.