Reserved IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 152 of 2009 Rajnesh Kumar Tyagi ………………Petitioner. Versus State Public Services Tribunal, U.P., Indira Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and others. ……..Respondents. Present: Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no. 5. Date of Decision : 26.7.2010 Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity and legality of the order of the State Public Services Tribunal dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure -11 to the Writ Petition), whereby the Claim Petition of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of his dismissal dated 19.6.1993 has been upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a constable in Police Armed Constablary (hereinafter referred to as PAC) in the erstwhile State of U.P. in the month of November, 1984. At the relevant time i.e. on 23.9.1992, the petitioner was posted as a constable in 31st Battalion of PAC at Rudrapur, district Nainital under the Commandant of the said Battalion. There was an allegation against the petitioner that he misbehaved with certain persons on 23.9.1992. It was also alleged that he was involved in a physical fight with some persons. On complaint, an explanation was called from the petitioner and after having found the explanation of the petitioner unsatisfactory, the Competent Authority imposed a minor punishment upon the petitioner. The petitioner was awarded punishment of 14 days’ Police Drill (P.D.). However, the petitioner instead of complying with the same insisted that there should be an inquiry into the matter and rather stubbornly refused to undergo the punishment and also refused to sign the relevant documents. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended from his service and a disciplinary proceeding proceeded against the petitioner. He was served with a Charge Sheet dated 11th February, 1993. The first charge against the petitioner was refusal of 14 days’ P.D. and the second was refusal by the petitioner for making signature in the register of the orderly room. There is no procedural irregularity, which effects the disciplinary proceeding as cited by the petitioner. The Police is a disciplinary force. Admittedly, the petitioner has refused to comply with the 14 days’ P.D. Had he done so, it would have been end of the matter. On the non compliance of the orders of the superior authorities, the Department rightly proceeded in a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. What is noteworthy is that it is an admitted fact, that the petitioner refused to comply with the punishment order of 14 days’ P.D. This being the admitted set of facts, any minor procedural irregularity does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the charge has been admitted by the petitioner, which was that he refused to comply with the orders of his Superiors and did not comply with the 14 days’ P.D. It is for this reason that the Superior Authorities against which the order of dismissal was appealed, as well as the State Public Services Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no indulgence is liable to be shown to the petitioner and the order of dismissal dated 19.6.1993 has rightly been upheld. 3. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition and the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 26.07.2010 Rathour