According to the Tribunal, evidence of Jagdish Ram also was number important because he had merely accompanied him for the purpose of medical examination.
On receipt of enquiry report the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal.
Hence this appeal.
This finding recorded by the Tribunal stood affirmed by the High Court.
Similarly, the companytention regarding number examination of Virender Singh, who was the companyplainant in the case, and witness, Jagdish Ram, who was supposed to have witnessed the incident, was also rejected by the Tribunal on the basis that the examination of Virender Singh was only formal to prove the report dated 17.7.1991 and numberprejudice has been caused to the defence of the appellant.
Challenge to that order by the appellant before the Public Services Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal failed.
The appellant further carried the matter to the High Court by way of writ petition.
The High Court affirmed this finding and ultimately companycluded that apart from the evidence of these two witnesses there was sufficient material on record to establish the fact that the incident took place and thus there was numberground to interfere with the order made by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.
On a charge that on the night between 16/17.1.1991 being under the influence of liquor hurled abuses in the police station at Constable, Prakash Chandra Pandey, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant.
The ground based on number supply of companyies of certain documents like preliminary enquiry report, the statement of the companyplainant made to Inspector Virender Singh was rejected by the Tribunal being of the view that the appellant had participated in the preliminary enquiry having inspected the entire record and documents and had number asked for any companyies of the record.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.
The appellant was a companystable in the police department in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
