JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Original petitioner who died and was survived and substituted by legal representative during pendency of this writ petition was appointed as constable in PAC in the year 1984. He was given a notice on 29.6.1994, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. At that time he was posted at Kurh Fategarh district Moradabad. Allegation against the petitioner in the notice was that he used some intoxicating substance and created panic among other police employees and also urinated on the arms and ammunition and a written information/complaint about the said incident was sent on 28.6.1994 by Thana incharge and it was further requested by the Thana incharge that petitioner should be posted at some other place. On the same date Shri Satya Prakash Sharma HC/IC also made a similar written complaint and thereupon petitioner was brought at company headquarters Chandausi District Moradabad. Thereafter the notice was given by Commandant 24 Battalion PAC Moradabad. Reply was sought on the same date. 3. Annexure 2 is the reply of the petitioner of the same date which is only of one line to the effect that applicant has not done any such thing in such manner. The reply is so evasive that it virtually amounts to admission. Thereafter, through impugned order dated 2.7.1994 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition services of the petitioner were terminated under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. Services were terminated with immediate effect and it was directed that one month’s salary would be paid to the petitioner. 4. The main argument of learned counsel of the petitioner is that as petitioner had completed 10 years service, hence he should be treated or should have been treated to be permanent employee and services could not be terminated without holding inquiry and giving reasons. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that services of the petitioner were temporary. It has also been stated that the order was passed after considering the explanation of the petitioner which was highly unsatisfactory. In para 12 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that petitioner was penalised twice in the year 1991-92 by awarding adverse entries and minor punishments and that he was suspended twice in the year 1992-93. 5. Opportunity of hearing is not a straight jacket formula. In para 12 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that petitioner was penalised twice in the year 1991-92 by awarding adverse entries and minor punishments and that he was suspended twice in the year 1992-93. 5. Opportunity of hearing is not a straight jacket formula. If charges are actually or virtually admitted then there is no need to provide further opportunity of oral hearing etc. In this regard reference may be made to Ashok Kumar Sonekar v. Union of India, 2007 (4) SCC 54 . In the said authority it has also been held that in case petitioner challenges his termination order through writ petition on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not provided then he must show in the writ petition that in case opportunity had been provided then what plausible cause he would have shown. 6. In para 22 of the writ petition it has been stated that in the year 1993 also petitioner was suspended on the ground of being drunk. 7. In the entire writ petition except in para 10, absolutely nothing has been said regarding the incident on the basis of which services of the petitioner were terminated i.e. being drunk, creating panic and urinating on the arms and ammunition. The entire para 10 of the writ petition is quoted below : “that allegations made against the petitioner are absolutely false and baseless” 8. This is also an extremely evasive denial virtually amounting to admission. 9. Accordingly, there was no need to provide any further opportunity of hearing after virtual admission of the petitioner about his guilt (in incident) in his one line reply which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Moreover, in the writ petition also there is no denial let alone specific denial of the charges levelled against the petitioner. 10. Police and PAC are highly disciplined forces and such type of behaviour as the one on the basis of which petitioner’s services were terminated cannot be tolerated vide AIR 2008 SC 375 , Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Taher Ali (in this authority it has also been held that earlier lapses of delinquent can be considered though not mentioned in the charge) and AIR 2008 SC 1099 , Deputy Inspector General of Police v. K. Ravinder Rao. 11. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. ————