( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is filed by the petitioner against the concurrent findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, after exhausting two rounds, where, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 31st May 1989 by the respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THE main grounds of challenge to the impugned order of dismissal dated 31st May 1989 passed by the respondent No. 1 are that the petitioner had never indulged in the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him; the procedure of departmental enquiry held by the authority was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice; the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence; and, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have failed to look into this aspect and, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal dated 31st May 1989 passed by the respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the incident dated 12th October 1985, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 27th March 1986 and, thereafter, charge sheet dated 1st June 1986 came to be issued, where, mainly, two charges were levelled against the petitioner, namely, (i) the petitioner had brought one tribal lady to the police quarter, room No. 59, c Block, with ill-intention, and (ii) the petitioner was found in a drunken condition. According to the charge sheet, the petitioner had committed the misconduct of unbecoming of a member of the disciplinary force. 3. 1 the petitioner denied the charges levelled in the said charge sheet and, after completion of the departmental enquiry, a show cause notice dated 25th january 1988 was issued by the respondent-Authority, to which, the petitioner submitted his reply on 30th March 1988, and contended that the Officer, who had prepared the enquiry report, was not competent to do so, because, he had conducted the preliminary enquiry. Thereafter, the Authority had given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 4th July 1988 and the enquiry report was rewritten by another Officer and, thereafter, again, a show cause notice was issued on 14th February 1989 calling upon the petitioner to explain why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 13th March 1989 and requested the authority that it was not a fit case to impose punishment of dismissal, in view of the fact that some of the witnesses had not deposed in the departmental enquiry as per their original statements, and no case was made out against the petitioner. 3. 2 having perused the report of the Enquiry Officer pursuant to the departmental enquiry, and the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent-Authority passed the order of dismissal dated 31st May 1989. In the said order, the respondent No. 1, carefully, discussed the objections raised by the petitioner and the main objection with regard to conduct of preliminary enquiry by the very Officer who had investigated the offence against the petitioner, was dealt with by the disciplinary Authority by stating that the enquiry report was written by another officer and even the petitioner, along with his next friend, was heard on 4th July 1988. According to the Disciplinary Authority, proper procedure was followed and there was no violation of principles of natural justice and, looking to the grave misconduct of the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from service by treating the period of suspension as such.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said order of dismissal dated 31st may 1989 passed by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector general of Police, Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2 herein, and the challenge to the order of dismissal in the said appeal also failed, and the order of the Disciplinary authority dated 31st May 1989 came to be confirmed b