Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—The petitioner is a constable in U.P. Police, who, by means of the present writ petition has prayed to issue writ of certiorari for quashing three orders i.e. the order dated 4.3.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Establishment), C.B.C.I.D. Head Quarter, U.P., Lucknow, the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., U.P., Lucknow in appeal against the impugned order, and the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow, in revision against the order of appellate authority.

Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing all the respondents. Perused the record.

3. According to the facts as stated in the petition, the petitioner was working as a police constable in U.P. Police, when he received a show-cause notice dated 11.9.2009 issued by Superintendent of Police (Establishment), mentioning therein that in the preliminary enquiry, and departmental proceedings the charges against him have been found proved, therefore, he was directed to show-cause as to why he should not be demoted to a lower pay-scale for 3 years. The charges against the petitioner were that he had demanded illegal gratification from one Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Ravi Agarwal representing himself as an Inspector. One more allegation against the petitioner was that he left the station of his posting (Muzaffar Nagar) and went to Bareilly without having any permission from his senior to leave the station.

4. Prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty under Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1991). After receiving the show-cause notice, the petitioner filed his detailed reply on 23.9.2009 explaining all the facts but the order of punishment was passed against him on 4.3.2010 by the respondent No. 4, Superintendent of Police (Establishment), C.B.C.I.D. Head Quarter, U.P., Lucknow, placing him at the lowest pay scale for three years.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2010 the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow, and according to the petitioner the respondent No. 3 too, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 2.6.2010. The petitioner challenged the orders of appellate authority by means of a revision before the respondent No. 2, Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow, against the order of the appellate authority dated 2.6.2010, which was also dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 30.8.2010. Thereafter the petitioner filed a mercy petition with prayer to consider his case sympathetically, but his prayer was not considered and later on the mercy petition was returned by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner vide order dated 1.10.2010.

6. Now the petitioner is before this Court by means of the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders have been passed by the concerned authorities without any evidence and material on record and only on the basis of suspicion and hearsay evidence. It is vehemently contended that the order of punishment dated 4.3.2010, has been passed relying only on the preliminary enquiry report, no regular departmental enquiry was ever conducted before passing the impugned order of punishment, whereas the punishment awarded to the petitioner, being a major punishment, a regular departmental enquiry was a must, before awarding the same.

8. Per contra, learned Standing counsel has opposed the petition by contending that seeing the misconduct of the petitioner, the police department has rightly punished him. T