The dismissal order violated the principle of natural justice and the appellant was subjected to hostile discrimination. The appellant's past service record was considered for awarding the punishment.

Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.

This Special Appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12-12-2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1483 of 2005 (S/S), Baram Dutt Vs. State and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. A writ petition bearing No. 1483/2005 (S/S) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the writ petitioner, (now appellant in the present special appeal), for the following reliefs :

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 29-03-2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4 and the appellate authority order dated 30-08-2005 passed by respondent NO.3.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Constable in the U.P. Armed Police w.e.f 01-04-1992 after undergoing training for 12 months. The writ petitioner joined as Constable in 31st Battalion PA.C. Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. On 22-03-2005 while the writ petitioner was performing his duties as Santry alongwith another constable Surendra Singh, the Commandant Prem Singh caught them red-handed consuming liquor during duty hours. Both the constables were sent for medical examination to District Hospital Rudrapur. It was further alleged in the writ petition that both the constables were placed under suspension by the Commandant-respondent No.4 and separate orders of suspension were issued to them. Thereafter, preliminary inquiry against both the constables was held by Mr. Daya Krishna Joshi, Assistant Commandant of Battalion who recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the inquiry report on 25-03-2005. On 29-03-2005, the writ petitioner was dismissed from services under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1991) without holding inquiry. It was further alleged in the writ petition that the principle of natural justice has been violated and the action on the part of the respondents was not fair, as the livelihood of the writ petitioner has been snatched without giving him opportunity to examine the witnesses resulting in miscarriage of justice. It was further alleged that constable Surendra Singh was also found guilty for the same conduct several times but he was exonerated from all the charges and reinstated in the services without initiating further proceedings. It was further alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No.4 passed the order dated 29-03-2005 without holding any inquiry. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 29-03-2005, the writ petitioner preferred appeal before the Inspector General of Police (PAC.) respondent NO.3 who has also dismissed the appeal cursorily without considering the material facts. Feeling aggrieved by this, the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition considering the writ petitioner's misconduct in question in the light of his service record. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order the writ petitioner (appellant in the present special appeal) has filed this Special Appeal.

4. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavit, pleading that the writ petitioner was caught red handed in the drunken state while on duty by the Commandant Prem Singh. The writ petitioner was sent for medical examination and it was medically proved that the writ petitioner had consumed alcohol. It was further pleaded that fact-find