JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri H. G. S Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents State.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing of the impugned order dated 17.02.2011 passed by Additional director of General Police/Director Traffic U.P./opposite party No.2, order dated 30.04.2010 passed by opposite party No.3 and order dated 12.10.2009 passed by Superintendent of Police, Hardoi/opposite party No.5 as contained in Annexure No.1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work on the post of constable and pay him salary regularly.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in U.P. Police on 20.11.1976 and on 9.5.2006 the petitioner while posted at Reserve Police Line, Hardoi, was given custody of an accused to be produced before the Sessions Court at Hardoi. The petitioner had gone to Court of Sessions at Hardoi along with the accused Sunder Lal alias Sundariya on 9.5.2006. The accused Sunder Lal alias Sundariya had ran away from the custody of the petitioner. An FIR was lodged in case crime No.665 of 2006 under Section 224 IPC at PS Kotwali Sadar, district Hardoi against the accused Sunder Lal alias Sundariya. The petitioner was served the order dated 12.5.2006 by which the punishment order was passed under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1991 and by the said order, the services of the petitioner were dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 10.8.2006.

4. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.8113 (S/S) of 2009 challenging the dismissal order dated 12.5.2006 whish was dismissed vide order dated 21.9.2006 on the alternative remedy of revision. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision before the O.P. No.3 which was dismissed. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.861 (S/S) of 2007 challenging the order of dismissal, appellate order and revisional order and the petition was allowed on 7.1.2009 by this Court and direction was issued that the fresh departmental proceedings may be completed if so desired, by the answering respondents.

5. In pursuance of the order dated 9.2.2009, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The chargesheet was served on 28.2.2009 on the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.3.2009. The Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report on 24.3.2009. In pursuance of the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued on 12.6.2009 and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 9.7.2009 denying charges. The disciplinary authority passed dismissal order on 12.10.2009 which was challenged by way of the Writ Petition No.157 (S/S) of 2010 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 13.1.2010 on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order of dismissal which was dismissed on 30.4.2010 and thereafter, the petition has preferred revision against the said order dated 30.4.2010 which was dismissed by the competent authority on 17.2.2011. Hence the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a specific stand in the petition that while passing the orders impugned, there is violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and opportunity of hearing has not been provided because the Inquiry Officer did not fix date, time and place and no evidence was adduced by the Inquiry Officer. Necessary averments have been made in paragraph 21 and 34 of the petition. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while filing counter affidavit, there is no specif