VIJAI BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by and an o der removing him from service passed by the Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 5 which was affirmed iu appeal with the dismissal thereof vide the order, dated 24-11- 1994 passed by the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 1, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel representing the respondents.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority negativing the defence Bet up by the petitioner. I have carefully perused the enquiry report as well as the orders by the disciplinary authority as well as the appel late authority. THE concurrent findings rejecting the defence of the petitioner are based on an appraisal of evidence and materials on the record which findings do not appear to suffer from any such legal infirmity which may justify any interference by this Court therein while exercising the extraordinary juris diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.