JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was appointed as police constable in the year 1986. On 1.5.2005 petitioner was suspended by Commandant 37 B P.A.C. Battalion, Kanpur. Suspension order is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It states that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are contemplated on the charge of misbehaviour with the Commandant on 1.5.2005 during monthly Sainik Sammelan. Suspension Order was passed under Rule 17(1) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. After two days i.e. on 3.5.2005 dismissal order was passed by the Commandant under Rule 8(2)(b) of the above Rules. The said order runs into 11 pages and in para 8 it records that as the incident occurred in the presence of the Commandant (Appointing authority who passed the termination order) hence there was no need of holding any inquiry. No charge-sheet etc. was issued and no inquiry worth its name was held before passing dismissal order. Appeal against the said order was filed which was dismissed by D.I.G. P.A.C. Kanpur on 24.5.2005. Said order is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Both the orders have been challenged through this writ petition. 3. In the dismissal order dated 3.5.2005 it is mentioned that during monthly Sainik Sammelan the petitioner stood up and insultingly asked that he had made complaint levelling charges of corruption against Ram Baran Singh, Company Commander through registered post and why action had not been taken thereupon till then. The incident took place in the presence of the Commandant who subsequently passed the dismissal order. It has further been stated that the Commandant told him that only 10 or 11 days had passed since receipt of his complaint and matter was being enquired and that such matters should not be raised in open Sainik Sammelan and Sainik Sammelans were meant only for ventilating the own grievances and that such type of discussion in the open Sammelan could jeopardize the enquiry and humiliate the person against whom petitioner had levelled the charges. It has further been mentioned that inspite of the suggestion/warning the petitioner continued to assert that he should be told that why action was not taken against Ram Baran Singh who was in the same Company i.e. F Company. It has further been mentioned that inspite of the suggestion/warning the petitioner continued to assert that he should be told that why action was not taken against Ram Baran Singh who was in the same Company i.e. F Company. It has also been mentioned that the officer who had been deputed to enquire the matter against Ram Baran Singh was away on duty of 8 days hence he was seized of the matter only for 3 or 4 days. It has also been mentioned that Ram Baran Singh had also filed complaint against the petitioner. 4. In the impugned order it has also been mentioned that during 2002-03 petitioner was transferred to 3 companies due to his misbehaviour i.e. C, H and F Companies. It has also been mentioned that on several occasions (4 or 5) petitioner was called in the orderly room and was warned for his misbehaviour and misconduct and counselling was done and at every occasion petitioner ensured that he would be careful in future but still he repeated same types of misbehaviour with his colleagues and the superiors. It has also been mentioned in the dismissal order that on perusal of service record of the petitioner it was found that he was awarded censure entry on 23.5.1994 for misbehaving and abusing with mess Manager. Similarly in the year 1986 he had misbehaved with Sri Subhash Gupta P.C. hence on 25.9.1996 he was awarded censure entry. In the same year i.e. 1996 petitioner was charged with attempt to kill his colleague Tilak Dhari Pal. However, other persons separated both of them. During that incident he had misbehaved with Sri Subhash Gupta. Similarly on 27.3.1998 he was awarded censure entry as he had misbehaved and abused his another colleague Abdul Jahir Khan. On 15.4.1998 also he was awarded minor punishment of fixing his salary in lower pay scale for six months. It was done due to the reason that on 25.6.1997 while posted at Allahabad Police Lines as Guard Commander he was not ready on time. Similarly, censure entries were awarded on 6.3.1999 and 22.9.2000 against the petitioner for his misbehaviour with some employees. He was also awarded minor punishment once in 2001 and twice in 2000. It was also mentioned that on 26.4.2005 when petitioner was posted at Lakhimpur, he was charged with cutting a Shisham tree and bringing the wood at his home. Similarly, censure entries were awarded on 6.3.1999 and 22.9.2000 against the petitioner for his misbehaviour with some employees. He was also awarded minor punishment once in 2001 and twice in 2000. It was also mentioned that on 26.4.2005 when petitioner was posted at Lakhimpur, he was charged with cutting a Shisham tree and bringing the wood at his home. Report was submitted on 26.4.2005 and inquiry in that regard was pending. 5. In this manner there were eight censure entries and three minor penalties against the petitioner. In the dismissal order it is mentioned that inspite of so many censure entries and minor punishments petitioner had not improved himself. He was always quarrelling with his officer and with his colleagues and assaulting them. It was also mentioned that higher authorities had directed that petitioner should be kept under watch through order dated 20.8.2004, hence his personal file had been opened. Commandant who passed the dismissal order, also mentioned that even though he had given detailed suggestion and warned the petitioner on three occasions in orderly room to improve his conduct but he did not do so and he misbehaved on 1.5.2005 in monthly Sainik Sammelan in the presence of Officers and employees which affected the constables and other employees. It was also observed that P.A.C. being disciplined force such thing could not be condoned and continuance of petitioner in service could lead to some grave incident. Accordingly, it was concluded that there was no occasion to hold departmental inquiry and it was not feasible and not necessary. Accordingly dismissal order was passed. 6. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner hence dismissal order is bad. 7. In the entire writ petition absolutely nothing has been said about any finding recorded against the petitioner in the dismissal order. It has not been said that the statement of the punishing authority that on earlier occasions petitioner was awarded censure entries and minor punishments was wrong. It is most important that even incident of 1.5.2005 has not been denied anywhere in the writ petition. The only thing which has been stated in the writ petition repeatedly is that termination order being without inquiry is illegal and the order is stigmatic and provision of para 486 of Police Regulations has been violated and not followed. It is most important that even incident of 1.5.2005 has not been denied anywhere in the writ petition. The only thing which has been stated in the writ petition repeatedly is that termination order being without inquiry is illegal and the order is stigmatic and provision of para 486 of Police Regulations has been violated and not followed. In para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that “it is wrong to say that petitioner misbehave with his higher authorities, in fact a mockery was done between petitioner and his other companion it was not a serious matter.” In para 9 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that petitioner never misbehaved with his superior authorities and respondents colluded with each other. 8. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonekar v. Union of India, 2007(4) SCC 54 that termination order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the employee concerned if in the writ petition filed against the termination order it has not been stated that what plausible cause the employee concerned would have shown in case opportunity had been provided. In the instant case in the entire writ petition not a single word has been said against the allegations made against the petitioner. Accordingly, it is not a fit case for setting aside the termination order merely on the ground of not providing opportunity of hearing, even if it is held that it was necessary to provide opportunity of hearing. 9. Under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as well as under Rule 8(2)(b) of the above Rules inquiry may be dispensed with for the reasons to be recorded by the authority concerned in writing to the effect that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. In AIR 2003 SC 1843 , Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, it has been held that if in respect of dispensing with the inquiry, two views are possible, the Court is not supposed to substitute its view as it does not exercise appellate power. 10. In my opinion reasons given by the appellate authority in the dismissal order for dispensing with the inquiry are quite sound. Petitioner was constantly quarrelling, abusing and assaulting his colleagues superiors and other employees. 10. In my opinion reasons given by the appellate authority in the dismissal order for dispensing with the inquiry are quite sound. Petitioner was constantly quarrelling, abusing and assaulting his colleagues superiors and other employees. In the open monthly Sainik Sammelan, he created scene, did not obey the authority and continued with his undue insistence on hasty conclusion of the inquiry against Ram Baran Singh. Police force being disciplined force such acts of indiscipline cannot be condoned. The punishing authority stated that the entire incident had taken place in his presence. In the entire writ petition there is absolutely no denial of the incident. Moreover it has not been asserted anywhere in the writ petition that inquiry was wrongly dispensed with. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following authorities : (1) Virendra Kumar Premi v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ESC 2565 : 2008 (8) ADJ 8 . (2) Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar, 2008 (1) ESC 120 (SC). (3) State Bank of India and others v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and another, 2008(6) Supreme 87 . (4) Narmada Pd. Yadav v. State of M.P. and others, 2006(8) Supreme 912 . 12. However, in my opinion firstly inquiry was rightly dispensed with secondly this aspect has not been challenged and thirdly holding of inquiry could not have made any difference as in the writ petition at the charges are virtually admitted. 13. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. ————