- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioner was appointed as constable in 33rd Vahani PAC, Jhansi in the year 1988. Thereafter on 13-8- 2004 Commandant 33rd Vahani PAC, Jhansi in exercise of power vested under Rule 8 (2) (b) U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 dismissed the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. Thereafter petitioner preferred Appeal against the same. Said appeal has also rejected on 15-4-2004. Thereafter Revision was preferred and said Revision was also rejected on 1-7-2005. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) COUNTER-affidavit has been filed contending therein that on 10-5-2004 petitioner was on duty and during duty hours he was under intoxication and in drunken stage misbehaved with Guard Commander Ram Shobhit Tiwari. Thereafter on complaint being made then inquiry was made and it was found that petitioner has misbehaved with Ram Shobhit Tiwari. Thereafter service record of the petitioner was perused and it was found that he is habitual of drinking liquor and misbehaviour and in the past he has been punished six times for the same conduct of consuming liquor and misbehaviour, and there has been no change in the conduct of the petitioner and as he has further misbehaved with Ram Shobhit Tiwari and seeing increasing tendency of indiscipline decision has been taken by exercising of authority vested under Rule 8 (2) (b) U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein the statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been rebutted and that of writ petition has been reiterated. After pleading mentioned above have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal.
(3.) SRI B. G. Yadav Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case without recording any finding that inquiry into the matter is practically not feasible, the authority concerned has passed totally unsustainable order of dismissal which has been subsequently affirmed, as such writ petition is liable to be allowed. Learned Standing Counsel countered the said submission by contending that impugned order clearly gives reasons for dispensing with the service of the petitioner as such no interference be made.;