VIJAY LAL MARKAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of termination dated 19.06.1999 (Annexure A/4) and also to the order dated 24.08.1999 (Annexure A/6), whereby the appeal preferred against the order of termination was rejected by the Appellate authority.

(2.) The present O.A. was originally filed before the State Administrative Tribunal, Raipur, where the case was registered as O.A. No. 75/2001, which on the abolition of the Tribunal has since been transferred to this High Court, where it has been given a fresh registration number of the year 2005. Meanwhile, the original petitioner i.e. the employee namely Vijay Lal Markam expired on 30.07.2003 and the wife of the employee has been substituted for further conducting of the case.

(3.) Cutting shot the detailed factual matrix of the case, the facts which are relevant for adjudication of the present case is that the deceased employee/original petitioner was working with the respondents as a Constable. The husband of the petitioner or the employee concerned was posted at police station Bhanupratappur, District Kanker. On 05.09.1998 while the employee concerned was posted as a Duty Treasury Guard at around 1:00 p.m. when there was a checking by the Superintendent of Police along with the Assistant Sub Inspector and other staffs and the Superintendent of Police found that the original petitioner along with another Guard to have consumed liquor. Immediately the Superintendent of Police got the two constables examined by the Doctor and obtained a report and the Doctor gave a positive report of the concerned employees to have been found having consumed alcohol. Subsequently, again on 209.1998 i.e. after about 15 days time, the Superintendent of Police again visited the police station in the night and the concerned employee i.e. the husband of the petitioner was again found having consumed liquor and the Superintendent of Police again got the constable examined from the Doctor and the Doctor again gave a report that the concerned constable was found positive of having consumed liquor.