- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. This Special Appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12-12-2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1483 of 2005 (S/s), Baram Dutt Vs. State and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) A writ petition bearing No. 1483/ 2005 (S/s) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the writ petitioner, (now appellant in the present special appeal), for the following reliefs : " (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 29-03-2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4 and the appel late authority order dated 30-08-2005 passed by respondent No. 3. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents to re instate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or di rection which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. " Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Con stable in the U. P Armed Police w. e. f. 01-04-1992 after undergoing training for 12 months. The writ petitioner joined as Constable in 31st Battalion PA. C. Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. On 22-03-2005 while the writ petitioner was performing his duties as Santry alongwith another constable Surendra Singh, the Commandant Prem Singh caught them red-handed consuming liq uor during duty hours. Both the consta bles were sent for medical examination to District Hospital Rudrapur. It was further alleged in the writ petition that both the constables were placed under suspension by the Commandant-re spondent No. 4 and separate orders of suspension were issued to them. There after, preliminary inquiry against both the constables was held by Mr. Daya Krishna Joshi, Assistant Commandant of Battalion who recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the in quiry report on 25-03-2005. On 29-03-2005, the writ petitioner was dismissed from services under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1991) without holding inquiry. It was further alleged in the writ petition that the principle of natural justice has been violated and the action on the part of the respondents was not fair, as the live lihood of the writ petitioner has been snatched without giving him opportunity to examine the witnesses resulting in miscarriage of justice. It was further al leged that constable Surendra Singh was also found guilty for the same conduct several times but he was exonerated from all the charges and reinstated in the services without initiating further pro ceedings. It was further alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 passed the order dated 29-03-2005 with out holding any inquiry. Feeling ag grieved by the dismissal order dated 29-03-2005, the writ petitioner preferred appeal before the Inspector General of Police (P. A. C.) respondent No. 3 who has also dismissed the appeal cursorily without considering the material facts. Feeling aggrieved by this, the writ peti tioner has filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Sin gle Judge has dismissed the writ petition considering the writ petitioner's miscon duct in question in the light of his serv ice record. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order the writ petitioner (appellant in the present special appeal) has filed this Special Appeal. The respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 have filed counter affidavit, pleading that the writ petitioner was caught red handed in the drunken state while on duty by the Commandant Prem Singh. The writ petitioner was sent for medical exami nation and it was medically proved that the writ petitioner had consumed alco hol. It was further pleaded that fact-finding inquiry was conducted against the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner was asked to give his explanation. The writ petitioner pleaded guilty in his state ment. The said inquiry report was sub mitted on 25-03-2005 after giving oppor tunity to the writ petitioner to defend himself. It was also pleaded that the writ petitioner on many occasions had been reprimanded and censure entries had been made against him in the year 2000 and 2003, when he was posted at Raj Bhawan, Nainital. It was further pleaded that the writ petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing before the departmental appeal. It was further pleaded that even during the fact-find ing inquiry, the writ petitioner had an opportunity to contradict the evidence but he pleaded guilty. It was further pleaded that Constable Surendra Singh being on reserve duty, misconduct on his part was less serious than that -f peti tioner, as such, he was punished with lighter punishment as against the writ pe titioner. It was lastly pleaded that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties', the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order 12-12-2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Special Appeal has been pre ferred by the appellant.;