- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Sri K. N. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. B. Tewari, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State/respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Stand ing Counsel for State of U. P/respondent nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 13-05- 1995,1/-02-1996,15-10-1999 and 31-05-2006 (annexure no. 4, 6,10 and 13 to the writ petition), passed by the respondents, ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct ing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in Service with all consequential benefits, iii. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the cir cumstances of the case, iv. Award the costs of petition. The petitioner was working as constable in the police department. He was posted on seasonal duty in district Uttarkashi in the year 1992. It was al leged that on 24-08-1992 at about 10:30 a. m. at police lines Uttarkashi he was indulged in unpleasant manner and he has also misbehaved in the police bar rack. He also used the filthy language while he was in a drunken stage. When the Line Inspector, police lines, Uttarkashi asked him not to indulge in such unbecoming conduct, the petitioner also misbehaved with him. The matter was thereafter re ported to the higher authorities and a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. A report was sub mitted by the Inquiry Officer in which it was found that the petitioner was in dulged in the unpleasant manner after taking liquor and he also used abusive language with his superiors in the police barracks on the aforesaid date, time and place. A prima-facie case of misconduct was made out in the preliminary inquiry against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
(3.) IN the departmental inquiry, the charges were framed against the peti tioner and a show cause notice was is sued to him. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the I. O. Ulti mately, the INquiry Officer submitted its report on 13-03-1995 on the basis of the material before him. The INquiry Officer held that the petitioner had consumed liquor on the relevant date and time and he was indulged in the unpleasant man ner and he also used the filthy language in the state of intoxication. The INquiry Officer accordingly found him guilty to the charges levelled against him. There upon, the Disciplinary Authority served a show cause notice upon the petitioner. The Competent Authority thereafter, passed order of dismissal on 18-05-1995 and the petitioner was also declined bal ance of salary other than the subsistence allowances during which the petitioner remained under suspension. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Au thority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dy. Inspector General of Po lice and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 1/-02-1996. Feeling ag grieved by this, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Competent Authority and the chargesheet served upon him on the ground that he was chargesheeted on the fictitious allega tions as no such incident took place on the relevant date in the police barrack and further prayed that the entire disci plinary proceedings have been made in violation of principles of nature justice.;