Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19th April, 2002, 14th May, 2002 and 31st October, 2002 passed by respondents by which the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner and affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the petitions are; disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 by giving charge-sheet dated 18th March, 2001. Before submitting the charge-sheet a preliminary inquiry was also held which recommended for holding disciplinary inquiry under 1991 Rules. The preliminary enquiry report found the petitioner under influence of alcohol on 1st September, 2000 in the Police Lines. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner in his reply stated that petitioner came to know on 1.9.2000 that he has been reported to be absent in Order Room on which information he went to the Order Room for recall of marking him as absent. He further stated that Sub-Inspector Radhey Shyam Singh to whom petitioner went became annoyed and to harm him took the petitioner to Beli Hospital for medical examination. The petitioner denied having consumed liquor on that date. The disciplinary inquiry was held in which witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. The Enquiry Officer also noted that petitioner has given in writing that he is not to lead any evidence, oral or documentary, in his defence. He prayed that he be sympathetically considered and proceedings be dropped. Before the Enquiry Officer Head Constable, Rameshwar Dubey and Sub-Inspector Radhey Shyam Singh appeared and their statements were recorded. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Senior Superintendent of Police vide his order dated 19th April, 2002 found the charges proved against the petitioner and agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The explanation of the petitioner that he was suffering from cold and fever and has taken cough syrup which was smelling as alcohol was not accepted. The Senior Superintendent of Police reduced the petitioner on the minimum pay scale for three years against which order appeal and revision were filed which too have been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders, contended that the petitioner on 1st September, 2000 has not committed any misconduct. The petitioner was not on duty and was marked absent. He submitted that even if the petitioner has consumed alcohol on that day he being not on duty, no charge of misconduct can be levelled on him. He further submitted that petitioner could have been charged only when he had consumed the alcohol while on duty. He has referred to Regulation 373-A of Police Regulations which provides that members of the Police Force are strictly forbidden to consume intoxicants during the course of their duty or when they may reasonably be expected to be called upon to perform an official duty. He has also referred to Rule 4-A(b) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 which provides that government servant shall not be under the influence of any intoxicating drink or drug during the course of his duty and shall take due care that the performance of his duties is not affected in any way by the influence of drink or drug.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgments reported in 1983(2) SLR 159, Rattan Lai Ex-Constable v. State of Haryana and others; 1983(2) SLR 645, Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others; (1995) 6 S.C.C. 157, Ram Kishan v. Union of India and others and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 2001(2) E.S.C. 719 (All) ; Pravina Solanki v. State of U.P. and others.

6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7. The charge, which was levelled against the petiti