Honble Shethna, J. – The petitioner who was appointed as a Constable was dismissed from service on Sept. 22, 1981 (Annex.5). His appeal was dismissed on August 10, 1982 (Annex.7) and also the review on Nov. 17, 1983 (Annex 9). therefore, he has filed this petition. (2). The charges against him are of very serious nature. It was alleged against the petitioner that he was posted at Sardarpura Police Station on March 29, 1980 and at mid-night hours at about 1.00 a.m. or at about 1.30 a.m. he alongwith one Dileep Kumar Constable from Jodhpur Police Line went to the house of Hukumpuri S/o Kirthpuri at Kamala Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur and given filthy abuses and asked him to go to Soorsagar Police Station. Neighbours of Hukumpuri enquired from Soorsagar Police Station and they were told that no person was sent for bringing Hukumpuri to the Police Station. The duty of the petitioner was at near Kohinoor Cinema, but he had gone to Hukumpuris house and harassed him. The regular departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and also against Constable Dileep Kumar. The enquiry officer submitted his report against the petitioner as from the evidence recorded by him he found the charge to be proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and issued show cause notice under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India against the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Serious allegations made and found to be proved against the petitioner and the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur dismissed the petitioner from service on the ground of misbehaving with the public in a drunken condition. It does not appear that as to whether Constable Dileep Kumar was punished or not. The petitioner chal- lenged his order of dismissal by way of regular departmental appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed. Thereafter, review petition was also filed and the same was also dismissed and therefore, this petition. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Saluja vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is not a speaking order, I am afraid. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Thereafter, review petition was also filed and the same was also dismissed and therefore, this petition. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Saluja vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is not a speaking order, I am afraid. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The impugned order at Annex.5 sets out not only the evidence of witnesses but also considered the defence and ultimately in the operative part of the order the disciplinary authority held that the charges leveled against both the persons are found to be proved and the behaviour of both the Police Constables have spoiled the reputation of Police Department. The police is made for the protection of public instead of that they mis-behaved with the public and, therefore, there cannot be any other punishment except dismissal from service. Thus, it cannot be said to be a non-speaking order, It is a well reasoned order. Atleast in Police De- partment Police Personnels are required to maintain strict discipline and if the Police Personnel start misbehaving with the public then who will protect the public. Therefore, in such cases no other penalty except the highest penalty should be awarded and is rightly awarded. Mr. Saluja further submitted that authority has not given any reasons while inflicting this maxi- maximum penalty. As stated earlier the mis-conduct is such where no more reasons are required. If such mis-conduct is proved then there cannot be any other order than that of dismissal. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saluja tried to argue that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is based on no evidence and, therefore, the dismissal order based on such evidence is required to be set aside. There is no substance in this submission also. There is evidence on record and not only that the evidence has been duly weighed by the enquiry officer and considered. It cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of enquiry officer. This Court is dealing with writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is not open to go into this question. Last submission made by Mr. It cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of enquiry officer. This Court is dealing with writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is not open to go into this question. Last submission made by Mr. Saluja was that the past conduct of the petitioner was taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority without giving him an opportu- nity of explaining the same, therefore, he should not have been dismissed from service. It is not proper to say that the disciplinary authority has considered the past conduct of the petitioner. Infact, the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in the impugned order is that if such persons misbehave with public then such persons become habituated and, they cannot be continued in service. They cannot be given single chance to improve their behaviour. (5). Lastly, learned counsel Shri Saluja relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1995(3) W.L.C., page 16 (1) on the ground that maximum penalty should not have been awarded by the disci- plinary authority and the penalty is very harsh and excess. I had ocassion to consider the Judgment in Ram Swaroop VS. State Road Transport Corporation (2) alongwith Supreme Court Judgment State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another (3). As stated earlier the misconduct committed by the petitioner is so serious and misconduct is proved then no order other than that of dismissal can be passed. In view of the above, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with cost.