Judgment 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. 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-finding inquiry was conducted against the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner was asked to give his explanation. The writ petitioner pleaded guilty in his statement. The said inquiry report was submitted on 25-03-2005 after giving opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend himself. It was also pleaded that the writ petitioner on many occasions had been reprimanded and censure entries had been made against him in the year 2000 and 2003, when he was posted at Raj Bhawan, Nainital. The said inquiry report was submitted on 25-03-2005 after giving opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend himself. It was also pleaded that the writ petitioner on many occasions had been reprimanded and censure entries had been made against him in the year 2000 and 2003, when he was posted at Raj Bhawan, Nainital. It was further pleaded that the writ petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing before the departmental appeal. It was further pleaded that even during the fact-finding inquiry, the writ petitioner had an opportunity to contradict the evidence but he pleaded guilty. It was further pleaded that Constable Surendra Singh being on reserve duty, misconduct on his part was less serious than that of petitioner, as such, he was punished with lighter punishment as against the writ petitioner. It was lastly pleaded that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order 12-12-2006. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Special Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The I,earned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned punishment order was passed in exercise of Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules, 1991 which confers extraordinary powers to the disciplinary authority; while exercising such powers, the punishing authority or disciplinary authority was bound to assign cogent reasons for denying regular enquiry against the delinquent employee; the recital in the impugned order of punishment did not disclose any Gogent reason to' dispense with the regular enquiry and to proceed under Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules, 1991. It was further contended that another person Surendra Singh who was allegedly caught red.handed consuming liquor with the writ petitioner was awarded lesser punishment for the same charges. The act of the disciplinary authority amounts to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the writ petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the disciplinary authority has erred in taking into consideration the past service record of the appellant for which minor punishment was awarded to the appellant; and the punishing authority did not award the punishment commensurate with the charge. 9. Mr. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the disciplinary authority has erred in taking into consideration the past service record of the appellant for which minor punishment was awarded to the appellant; and the punishing authority did not award the punishment commensurate with the charge. 9. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court and refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has preferred a writ petition before the writ court to challenge his dismissal order dated 29-03-2005 passed by the disciplinary authority. A judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. The writ court or the Tribunal has to determine as to whether the enquiry was held by a competent authority or, whether the rules had been complied with; whether the authority entrusted with the power to hold enquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. Thus, the judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the factual aspect as an appellate authority. Before dealing with the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we would like to refer the relevant Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules, 1991 which reads as under: "8. Dismissal and removal :- (2) No Police Officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules: Provided that this rule shall not apply- (a) ............................................. (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonable practicable to hold such enquiry; or (c) ....... ....... ............... .......... 11. The aforesaid provision (b) of the above Rule would apply only where the conduct of a government servant is such as he deserved the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. ....... ............... .......... 11. The aforesaid provision (b) of the above Rule would apply only where the conduct of a government servant is such as he deserved the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. So, before denying a government servant, his right as provided under above quoted Rule to an enquiry, the first consideration would be whether the conduct of the government servant concerned is such as justifies any of these penalties. Once that conclusion is reached and the condition specified in the relevant clause of proviso (b) is satisfied, that proviso becomes applicable and the government servant is not entitled to an enquiry. The condition precedent for the application of proviso (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. Whether it was practicable to hold an enquiry or not, must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by the said proviso (b). What is required is that the holding of the enquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a disciplinary authority. The reasonable practicability of holding an enquiry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority. Such an authority is generally present on the spot and knows what is happening and is the best judge of the situation. It is on the part of the disciplinary authority to record his satisfaction for dispensing with the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 8 proviso (b) of Rules, 1991. It is apparent from the perusal of the record that the appellant was a constable in the PAC and he has consumed liquor while in the duty as a Santry at Quarter Guard of the Armoury. The appellant was entrusted with a responsible duty of Sentry at Quarter Guard of an arsenal where arms and ammunitions were kept and the person on guard has to be vigilant and alert, but the appellant was found in a drunken state. The appellant was caught red-handed at the spot in a drunken state during the duty hours. He was immediately sent for medical examination and he was medically examined by the doctor. The doctor has opined that the appellant was under the influence of liquor. The appellant was caught red-handed at the spot in a drunken state during the duty hours. He was immediately sent for medical examination and he was medically examined by the doctor. The doctor has opined that the appellant was under the influence of liquor. A fact finding enquiry was conducted by Sri Daya Krishna Joshi, Assistant Commandant in this matter and the appellant appeared before him and he admitted that he had consumed the liquor while he was on Sentry duty and also apologized and assured that same would not be repeated again. Thus, it is not the case of the appellant that he had not consumed the liquor while he was on duty. The recording in writing of the reasons for dispensing with the enquiry must precede the order imposing the penalty. The reason need not contain detailed particulars, but must not be vague or just a repetition of the language of Clause (b) of the above quoted proviso. Each case must be judged on its own merits and in the light of its own facts and circumstances. It is not obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to record the cogent reasons. There must be some reasonable reasons to dispense with the enquiry. Perusal of the impugned dismissal order dated 29-03-2005 reveals that detailed reasons have been given in the impugned order dismissing the services of the appellant. Perusal of the dismissal order clearly reveals that the disciplinary authority before awarding the punishment has sufficiently recorded the reasons as contemplated under Rule 8(b) of Rules, 1991. Thus, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that another person constable Surendra Singh who was allegedly caught red-handed consuming liquor with the appellant was awarded lesser punishment for the same charge after holding a full fledged enquiry and the appellant was arbitrarily discriminated as against constable Surendra Singh who was awarded a lesser punishment for the same charge. It is not in dispute that the appellant was entrusted with the responsible duty of a Sentry at Quarter Guard of an Arsenal where arms and ammunitions were kept and constable Surendra Singh though he was assigned the reserve duty in place of the appellant, only when the appellant would have been on leave or when he would not have turned up for duties. The appellant was on duty as Sentry and there was no question of Surendra Singh being on duty at that time. The gravity of misconduct of the appellant was far more serious than constable Surendra Singh as the appellant had been given a responsible duty to protect the armoury. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant in past had been reprimanded and censure entry had been recorded in his record. In the year 2000, he fired from his rifle negligently for which he was punished for 10 days PD and again, on 04-06-2003, while he was posted at Raj Shawan, Nainital and while in duty, he was caught sleeping in a drunken state. Thus, the appellant was never being a responsible police official in the armoury. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was a member of the PAC and he has to maintain the discipline. None can be allowed to violate the discipline of the force. The unbecoming and unsavory habitual behaviour of any member of a force during the duty hour in a matter of utmost seriousness. It is amply established that the appellant had consumed the liquor on the relevant time and he was indulged in unbecoming behaviour. Thus, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the misconduct of Constable Surendra Singh who was on reserve duty cannot be said to be that serious as of the appellant. The appellant was found in the state of intoxication while he was performing the 'Santri' duty of the armoury. The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the appellant has not been arbitrarily discriminated as against the Constable Surendra Singh, who was awarded a lesser punishment. 13. It was further contended that the disciplinary authority had awarded the severe penalty of dismissal whereas the act of the petitioner was not such which could have resulted in the dismissal of service of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the' contention. 13. It was further contended that the disciplinary authority had awarded the severe penalty of dismissal whereas the act of the petitioner was not such which could have resulted in the dismissal of service of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the' contention. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was a member of the PAC. and he has to maintain the discipline. The people had a trust and faith in the police, so every member of the police should maintain the discipline and follow the rules and regulations. None can be allowed to violate the discipline of the force. 14. In the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu Vs. S: Vel Raj 1997 (1) Supreme 387, the constable was sent for official duty and he returned from the duty to the police station in a drunken stage. He consumed Ark (intoxicant substance). His act was recorded as misconduct. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the police force is supposed to be a disciplined force. Its members should behave in disciplined manner, particularly when the police personnel is on duty. The punishment of dismissal was not found excessive. In the case of Govt. of A.P. & others Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan 2006 (2) SCC 373, one head-constable of police was assigned the bandobast duty at the office of a software company at the time of visit of the President of USA. It was alleged that the head constable while on duty had removed a CCTV lens from the office and concealed the same. A detailed inquiry was conducted against the head constable and the inquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charge against the head constable of theft of CCTV lens had been proved. Having regard to the serious nature of delinquency committed by a member of the disciplined force, the inquiry officer proposed that the head constable be awarded with a stringent punishment to meet the ends of justice. The head constable preferred a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court quashed the order of dismissal and the head constable was reinstated in service. But, when the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been held that the inquiry officer was justified in taking the view that the charges were serious in nature, being stringent punishment. But, when the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been held that the inquiry officer was justified in taking the view that the charges were serious in nature, being stringent punishment. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal set aside the order of the High Court. In Director General, RPF and others Vs. Ch. Sai Babu, (2003) 4 SCC p/331, the petitioner was a member of Railway Protection Force and he was a habitual offender, and due to dereliction of duties he was awarded punishment. The learned Single Judge set aside the removal of the petitioner and directed to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. The Division Bench also confirmed the said judgment. But the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or the Tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching at the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the respondent was shockingly or grossly disproportionate. The case was remanded and the learned Single Judge was directed to pass an appropriate order in the matter. 15. It is amply established that the petitioner had consumed liquor on the relevant time and place mentioned aforesaid and he was indulged in an unbecoming behaviour. On being medically examined, he was found in the state of intoxication by the medical officer. These salient factors are utterly undisputed as the petitioner has not challenged his indulgence and involvement in an unbecoming behaviour and misconduct on the relevant date, time and place. 16. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the disciplinary authority can not take into account the previous misconduct of the appellant. The learned counsel for the State refuted the contention and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Syed Hussain reported in (2006) 3 SCC 173 in which it has held in paras 14, 15 and 16 as under: 14. The respondent herein was a Constable. He was to uphold the rule of law. It was his duty to aid the prosecution in getting the guilty punished. It was not his duty to aid or abet the accused in fleeing from justice. The respondent herein was a Constable. He was to uphold the rule of law. It was his duty to aid the prosecution in getting the guilty punished. It was not his duty to aid or abet the accused in fleeing from justice. The accused In question Ahmed Qureshi, in view of the finding of fact arrived at by the disciplinary authority, was a hardened criminal. He had been involved in a series of snatching cases. Not only that, the respondent was also helping other accused persons in obtaining bail from the courts. It has been pointed out that in the case in which the respondent stood surety for the said Ahmed Qureshi, he had jumped bail. Presumably because the respondent a Constable had stood as his surety, he was enlarged on bail by the court. 15. In a situation of this nature, keeping in view the nature of duties that a protector of law is required to perform, we are firmly of the opinion that the disciplinary authority cannot be said to have committed an error in imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the respondent particularly when on earlier two occasions also he had been found guilty of commission of misconduct and punished therefor. The High Court thus committed a manifest error in arriving at a finding that the respondent had unblemished record for 28 years. We are not sure whether the High Court's attention was drawn to the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants herein before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which showed the contra but on the basis of the materials on record which was before the High Court such finding could not have been arrived at. 16. Furthermore, the punishment of removal from service is not imposed only in the case of fraud or defalcation of government funds but even where a misconduct is committed by a person who holds a position of trust and on whom society looks forward as a protector of law and in such cases punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate, and thus the same was not even violative of the doctrine of proportionality In view of the above, we are of the view that the disciplinary authority was competent to consider the previous misconduct of the appellant. Thus, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. In view of the above discussions, we are completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any force in the appeal. 18. The appeal devoids of merit & is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. 19. No order as to costs.