V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has rushed to this Court questioning the validity of the dismissal order dated 18.04.2008 passed by Commandant 38th Battalion P.A.C. Aligarh which has been further affirmed in Appeal and Revision vide orders dated 15.09.2008 and 25.03.2009 respectively by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.C. Western Zone and Inspector General of Police P.A.C. Agra Region Agra.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Petitioner has been member of disciplined force. In the year 2007 Petitioner was posted at 38 battalion, P.A.C. Aligarh. On 28.09.2007 at the point of time when he was to be produced in the orderly room he was found in intoxicated state and Petitioner was accordingly sent for medical examination and was found intoxicated state. Thereafter Petitioner was put for disciplinary proceedings by submitting charge -sheet on 12.12.2007 under Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. Petitioner, after receiving said charge sheet, submitted his reply and thereafter inquiry has been so held. Witness produced in the inquiry are namely P.W. 1 Sri Azad Mohmad, P.W. 2 Dharm Veer Singh, P.W. 3 Ram Kripal, P.W. 4 Vinod Kumar, P.W. 5 Bantesh Kmar, P.W. 6 Gulab Singh, P.W. 7 Rajendra Singh, P.W. 8 Ramchandra, P.W. 9 Rohan Singh, P.W. 10 - Amar Singh, P.W. 11, Company Commander Chandrapal Sharma, P.W. 12 Captain Dr. Abhay Kumar Rastogi, P.W. 13 Surajbhan Singh Bhadoria. Petitioner was given full opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses, in the said disciplinary proceeding and thereafter Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24th March, 2008. Show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 29th March, 2008. Petitioner submitted his reply contending therein that he has not taken liquor. Disciplinary authority found misconduct and accordingly passed order and said order has been affirmed in Appeal and Revision. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Pleadings inter se have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition has been taken for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) SRI Sushil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended with vehemence that lenient view ought to have been taken against the Petitioner and some lesser punishment should be accorded to him and the fact of the matter is that Petitioner has taken medicine and was not at all intoxicated stage as has been mentioned in the impugned order, as such present writ petition deserves to be allowed.;