JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.4.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, by which he has been dismissed from service. 2. Heard Sri Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the relief No. (iii) which relates to validity of Rule 8 (2) (b) of U.P. Police Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) and requested that the petition be decided on merit in respect of the other prayers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the dismissal order no reason whatsoever has been given, which is mandatory for dispensing with the requirement of enquiry contemplated in Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Rules. 5. In support of the contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Premi v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (8) ADJ 8 and in the case of Dinesh Prasad Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (6) ADJ 485 . 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the impugned order detailed reasons have been given for the dismissal of the petitioner, which has not been denied in the writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 20.4.2008. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the impugned order detailed reasons have been given for the dismissal of the petitioner, which has not been denied in the writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 20.4.2008. The impugned order reads as follows: "iqfyl ykbu xkSrecq}uxj esa fu;qDr dkUl0 681 ukiq Hka;dj flg iq= Jh yk;d jke fuoklh xzke xkth cSthiqj Fkkuk fldUnzkckn cqyUn’kgj dks rhu ckj ’kjkc ds lsou fd;s tkus ds izdj.k esa ,oa 3 ckj vukf/kÑr :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus o fM;wVh esa ykijokgh cjrus ds lEcU/k esa 6 ckj y/kq n.Mksa ,oa 17 ckj Nqnz n.Mksa ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA ;g vkj{kh fnukad 20-5-2000 dks iqfyl ykbu esa ’kjkc dk lsou dj mRikr djus, fnukad 3-10-2002 dks fM;wVh ds nkSjku ’kjkc ds u’ks esa engks’k gksus ,oa fnukad 26-12-03 dks ek?k esyk fM;wVh bykgkckn esa ’kjkc dk lsou dj fM;wVh esa mnklhurk cjrus ds lEcU/k esa nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gS ijUrq mlesa dksbZ lq/kkj ifjyf{kr ugh gks jgk gSA vkj{kh ds ÑR; ls iqfyl dh Nfo turk ds chp fujUrj /kwfey gks jgh gSA 2- dkUl0 681 ukiq Hk;adj flag iq= Jh yk;d jke fuoklh xzke xkth cSuhiqj Fkkuk fldUnzkckn cqyUn’kgj ds }kjk ftu dnkpj.kksa ds ÑR; fd;s x;s gSa og vR;Ur vuq’kklughurk ,oa iqfyl tSls vuq’kkflr foHkkx ds fy, v’kksHkuh; gSA bl vkj{kh ds bu dnkpj.k ls vU; iqfyl tu esa izfrdwy izHkko iM+rk gSA ftl izdkj ds dnkpj.k mDr vkj{kh }kjk fd;s x;s gS] og pjelhek dh vuq’kklughurk] vdeZ.;rk rFkk nqjkpj.k dk ?kksrd gSA bl vkj{kh }kjk fd;s x;s bl mn.Mrk iw.kZ ÑR;ksa ds fy, ;fn mls iqfyl foHkkx esa vkj{kh tSls egRoiw.kZ in ij fu;qDr j[kk tkrk gS rks mlls vU; iqfyl dfeZ;ksa esa Hkh izfrdwy lUns’k tk;sxkA ;fn vkj{kh ds fo:} izkjfEHkd tkWp djkbZ Hkh tkrh gS rks mlls Hkh fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ ykHkizn mnns’; n`f"Vxkspj ugha gksxkA ,sls izdj.k esa bl izdkj ds nks"k dh xEHkhjrk vkSj Hkh c<+ tkrh gSA tcfd nks"kh deZpkjh iqfyl dehZ gksrk gSA bl vkj{kh ds lsok vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd bl vkj{kh dks iwoZ esa fM;wVh ds nkSjku ’kjkc dk lsou dj vuq’kklughurk@vHknzrk iznf’kZr djus ds QyLo:i 6 ckj y?kq n.Mksa ,oa 17 Nqnzn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gS fQj Hkh blds dk;Z o vkpj.k esa fdlh izdkj dk lq/kkj ifjyf{kr ugha gqvk gSA vr% mi;qZDr rF;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, eSa ,0 lrh’k] x.ks’k ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd xkSrecq}uxj tks vkj{kh in dk fu;qDr vf/kdkjh gWw bl ckr dk lek/kku gks tkus ds mijkUr fd bl vkj{kh ds }kjk fd;s x;s ÑR;ksa ds fy, mls iqfyl tSls vuq’kkflr foHkkx esa vkSj vf/kd le; rd fu;qDr j[kuk tufgr esa mfpr ugha gS m0iz0 iqfyl ds v?khuLFk vf/kdkjh deZpkjh dh ¼n.M ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 1991 ds fu;e 8 ¼2½ ¼[k½ esa fn;s x;s vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dkUl 681 ukiq Hk;adj flag iq= Jh yk;d jke fuoklh xzke xkth cSuhiqj Fkkuk fldUnzkckn dks vkj{kh ds in ls inP;qr ¼fMlfel½ fd;s tkus dk vkns’k ikfjr djrk gWwA"‘ 8. Rule 8 of U.P. Police Officer of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 read as follows : “8. Dismissal and removal.—(1) No police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. (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) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (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 reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry; or (c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry. (3) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends dismissal or removal of a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector shall be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General concerned for orders. (4) (a) The punishment for intentionally or negligently allowing a person in police custody or judicial custody to escape shall be dismissal unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing awards a lessor punishment. (b) Every officer convicted by the Court for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers it otherwise.” 9. In the writ petition, the aforesaid allegations mentioned in the impugned order have not been denied. In my view aforesaid reasons are sufficient to dismiss the petitioner without making any enquiry. 10. I have gone through the •decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. They are not applicable to the present case and are distinguishable on the facts. In the case of Virendra Kumar Premi v. State of U.P. and others (supra) it is held that without holding a full-fledged enquiry by using the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry is not justified. 11. In the case of Virendra Kumar Premi v. State of U.P. and others (supra) it is held that without holding a full-fledged enquiry by using the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry is not justified. 11. In the case of Dinesh Prasad Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others (supra), while dispensing with the requirement of enquiry no reason was given but in the present case, detailed reasons have been given. 12. Police personnel is assigned work to maintain the law and order situation and is expected to be in discipline and there act should not be such which are prohibited under the provisions of law and amounts to criminal act. Petitioner being police personnel found taking the liquor during the course of duty is serious offence committed by him and cannot be condoned by any means. Apart from this he was found absent from the duty on several occasion. If such persons are allowed to continue in police service, wrong message will go to the society. Perusal of impugned order reveals that much latitude has been given to the petitioner to which he was not entitle. 13. Enquiry is required when facts are disputed and requires investigation and verification. In the present case allegations are not disputed. 14. In view of the above, no interference is required. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. ————