( 1 ) HEARD Sri Arvind Kunjar Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner on the Restoration application No. 150483 of 2003 as well as Sri Raj Kumar learned Standing counsel for the respondents/state Government. The cause shown in the restoration application is sufficient. The order dated 16. 7. 2003 is recalled and the writ petition is heard on merits.

( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, therefore, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is decided finally at this stage in view of the Second proviso to Rule 2 of chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner while posted as Head Constable in the 42nd Battalion Provincial armed Constabulary (PAC) Naini, Allahabad was charge sheeted on 27th February 1986 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). The. . petitioner was said to have misbehaved with one Sri Raj singh Rathore Senior Assistant Commandant 42nd Battalion P. A. C. in the Mess meeting and subsequently on the same day in his office with lowed voice using irrelevant words and making absurd allegations and had shown indiscipline. The charge sheet was responded by denying the charges. Departmental inquiry was initiated by Sri Shailendra Sagar, who himself was the inquiry Officer. The inquiry officer in its report dated 21. 4. 1986 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) recommended the dismissal order of petitioner and show cause notice was issued accordingly in reference to the finding of the Inquiry Officer which too was responded on 9th may, 1986 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). Considering the response of the charge sheet and the finding of the inquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service in the light of the regulation of U. P. Police Act, 1861, The petitioner also preferred appeal before the Inspector general of Police and simultaneously filed claim petition before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal and during the pendency of the claim petition the appeal was dismissed by the Dy. Inspector general of Police without considering the facts and evidence of the present case by order dated 19. 12. l986 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition ). The tribunal in its order dated 6th April, 1994 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), which is also impugned Order under challenge, has found that there is no procedural lapse in inquiry and the subsequent order passed by the appellate authority too declined to interfere with the dismissal order on the ground of proportionately.

( 4 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the charge sheet and the alleged mis-conduct/misbehaviour levelled against petitioner were vague, as the exact nature of mis-behaviour or word of abusive language used by the petitioner had not been mentioned, hence the suitable reply and effective defence and cross-examination was not possible. .

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, no proper opportunity was afforded by the Inquiry Officer, hence there is clear violation of Article 14 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the principles of natural justice. The statement of witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry had not been supplied to the petitioner, in spite of repeated request of petitioner. At the time of alleged incident in the mess meeting those witnesses present and mentioned in the show cause notice, were not examined namely Head Constable Jagdamba Prasad Upadhyaya and Constable ashok Kumar Rana as they were expected to disclose correct facts. The number of question asked by thepetitioner from witnesses during the cross-examination were turnedown by the inquiry Officer, hence reply of the same could not come in their statement. Even the witnesses who were present at the time of alleged incident in the mess meeting and wanted to appear as defence witnesses were orally threatened by Sri Raj Singh Rathur the then Senior Assistant commandant and the then Commandant Sri Shailendra Sagar, hence they could not appear to tell the truth. Inspite