Judgement J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. Heard Sri K.N. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.B. Tewari, learned Add!. Advocate General for the State/respondent nos. 1, 4 & 5 and Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 13-05-1995, 17-02-1996, 15-10-1999 and 31-05-2006 (annexure no. 4, 6, 10 and 13 to the writ petition), passed by the respondents, ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, iii. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, iv. Award the costs of petition. 3. The petitioner was working as constable in the police department. He was posted on seasonal duty in district Uttarkashi in the year 1992. It was alleged that on 24-08-1992 at about 10:30 a.m. at police lines Uttarkashi he was indulged in unpleasant manner and he has also misbehaved in the police barrack. He also used the filthy language while he was in a drunken stage. When the Line Inspector, police lines, Uttarkashi asked him not to indulge in such unbecoming conduct, the petitioner also misbehaved with him. 4. The matter was thereafter reported to the higher authorities and a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. A report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer in which it was found that the petitioner was indulged in the unpleasant manner after taking liquor and he also used abusive language with his superiors in the police barracks on the aforesaid date, time and place. A prima-facie case of misconduct was made out in the preliminary inquiry against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension. 5. In the departmental inquiry, the charges were framed against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the 1.0. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 13-03-1995 on the basis of the material before him. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension. 5. In the departmental inquiry, the charges were framed against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the 1.0. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 13-03-1995 on the basis of the material before him. The Inquiry Officer held that the petitioner had consumed liquor on the relevant date and time and he was indulged in the unpleasant manner and he also used the filthy language in the state of intoxication. The Inquiry Officer accordingly found him guilty to the charges levelled against him. Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority served a show cause notice upon the petitioner. The Competent Authority thereafter, passed order of dismissal on 18-05-1995 and the petitioner was also declined balance of salary other than the subsistence allowances during which the petitioner remained under suspension. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dy. Inspector General of Police and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 17-02-1996. Feeling aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, Luck now challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Competent Authority and the charge sheet served upon him on the ground that he was charge sheeted on the fictitious allegations as no such incident took place on the relevant date in the police barrack and further prayed that the entire disciplinary proceedings have been made in violation of principles of nature justice. 7. The learned Tribunal, having heard the parties, dismissed the claim petition vide its order dated 15th October 1999. The petitioner also filed a Review Petition before the Public Service Tribunal and after due consideration, the said review petition was also dismissed on 31-05-2006. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. Conclusion receives support there from, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The court in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. Conclusion receives support there from, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The court in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The court may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was a member of the Civil Police Force and it is supposed that the members of the civil police forces would maintain the discipline. Every member of it requires strict observance of its disciplined rules and regulation. None can be allowed to violate the discipline of the force. The unbecoming and unsavory behaviour of a member of a force, in the state of intoxication during the course of the day, is serious matter and it could not be lightly swept away. The learned Tribunal was justified in not interfering with the punishment of dismissal of petitioner in these facts and circumstances of the case. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions we are of the considered view that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly passed the order of dismissal. We do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are entirely agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer that the charges are of serious in nature, being committed by a member of a disciplined force, who deserved stringent punishment. To instill the confidence of the public in the establishment, the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal• from service, which has been correctly awarded. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. * * *