JUDGMENT
A.P. Sahi, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.10.2005 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated under Rule 7 (3) of the U.P. Police Officers and Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and have also perused the affidavits exchanged between the parties.
3. The petitioner has been charged of not being diligent in his duties and even otherwise guilty of insubordination and mis behavior. The impugned order records that the petitioner had been deployed on election duty but he refused to proceed on his duty and also did not obtain arms for proceeding to the place where he was deputed. It is also indicated that the petitioner v\as half dressed at the point of time when the Circle Officer intercepted him in order to see that he is deployed at his place where he has been asked to perform his duties. It is stated in the order that the petitioner had refused to obey the orders of Sri Anand and therefore, was entitled for the punishment.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that if that were the charges, then the same could have been inquired into in a regular inquiry and there was absolutely no material so as to dispense with the inquiry all together. It has also been urged that there are no cogent reasons indicated as to why it was not possible to hold a regular inquiry against the petitioner.
5. A perusal of the counter affidavit simply indicates that since the petitioner is a member of a disciplined force and in the event he is assessed a disobedient official then his services deserve to be terminated. In para 16 of the counter affidavit it is stated that even though it was not feasible to hold an inquiry under the rules, yet a preliminary report had been obtained. The counter affidavit does not disclose any cogent reason as to why it was not possible to hold an inquiry against the petitioner. The incident on the basis where of the petitioner has not been given the opportunity to face a regular inquiry is not such an incident for which an inquiry was impossible. The petitioner was at least entitled to a defence in respect of a charge of insubordination or having not performed his duties diligently. The indiscipline of the petitioner and its gravity could have been assessed by holding an inquiry and there is no material to indicate that it was impossible to hold such an inquiry. In such circumstances the conclusion drawn in the impugned order dated 19.10.2005 to the said effect cannot be sustained.
6. Accordingly, the order dated 19.10.2005 is quashed with liberty to the respondent No. 2 to hold a regular inquiry if so desirable against the petitioner and in case such an inquiry is held the petitioner shall cooperate with the same.
7. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands.