Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. Pleading between the parties have been exchanged and with their consent, the present petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.

3. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 9.5.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 1.8.2011 passed by the respondent No. 4 respectively.

4. By the impugned order dated 1.8.2011 passed by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule 4 (1) (ka) (i) read with Rule 14 (1) (ka) (i) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Against the same, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 30.8.2012 and the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 9.5.2013. All such orders are under challenge in the present petition.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the charge against the petitioner was that while he was posted in 24th Battalion PAC Moradabad, on 13.8.2010 at about 18:30 he, under the influence of liquor, misbehaved with the Company Commander Mr. Govind Singh and without registering his entry of his departure and without reporting to the Battalion Head Office, he remained absent and on medical examination it was found that he had consumed liquor. A charge-sheet was given to the petitioner, in reply whereof he admitted the charges in writing and also gave in writing that he does not want to cross-examine any person. Enquiry proceedings were conducted and after consideration of documentary evidence on record as well as recording statement of departmental witnesses, the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved. Based on the aforesaid, punishment order was passed.

6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and in any case punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate and excessive. He further submits that the petitioner was not under influence of alcohol though he had taken medicines but has never misbehaved with his superior officer. During the course of argument, it was submitted that the petitioner had denied the charges and has submitted his reply to the show-cause notice that he had taken some medicines because of his throat infection and has not consumed liquor. Much emphasis was placed on the argument that the petitioner had never accepted his charges.

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has supported the impugned orders and has also drawn the attention of previous misconduct of the petitioner as noticed in the enquiry proceedings.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

9. On perusal of the record, I find that the acceptance of charges given by the petitioner in writing is at page 26 of the counter-affidavit as Annexure 3 to the counter-affidavit and is mentioned in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 8 of the rejoinder-affidavit the same has not been disputed and it is stated that the paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit is matter on record and reply to show-cause notice has also been given by the petitioner in detail. Therefore, this letter is not in dispute and has rightly been relied on by the Enquiry Officer in its enquiry report. Even otherwise, the enquiry was conducted in a proper and legal manner and there is no infirmity in the enquiry report. Enquiry report also reflects that the petitioner is habitual of misbehaving with superior and was found guilty of consuming liquor on earlier occasions also for which he was punished. In the medical examination, an opinion has been given that the petitioner has taken alcohol like substance and s