SURESH PAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated 27th September, 2007 in O. A no. 2503/2006, Constable Suresh Pal v. Commissioner of Police and Anr dismissing his original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985, seeking quashing of order dated 2nd December, 2003 ordering a regular departmental enquiry, findings of enquiry officer dated 14th August, 2004 and order dated 22nd November, 2004 passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting the penalty of forfeiture of two years of service permanently and for two years leading to reduction in pay and treating his period of suspension as not spent on duty, and order dated 19th February, 2005 including the name of the petitioner on the list of persons with doubtful integrity. The charge against the petitioner was that he was drunk on patrol duty when he was with ASI Girdhari Lal. When he was being taken for medical checkup he escaped and, therefore, he could not be medically examined.

(2.) THE defense of the petitioner was that he had not escaped rather he had gone for taking his son to the Doctor after taking permission to leave from ASI girdhari Lal.

(3.) THE enquiry officer and disciplinary authority had considered the statement of asi Girdhari Lal with whom the petitioner was on patrol duty, when he was under the influence of alcohol and relied on the same as no malafide was imputed against Sh. Girdhari Lal. The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority also considered the statement of Dr. Sunil Kumar who did not state that the petitioner had brought his son to his clinic. The Tribunal considered the evidence relied on by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal has also held that in judicial review the Tribunal is not to re- appreciate the evidence adduced in departmental enquiry unless there are serious lapses in the report of the enquiry officer which would negate the findings on the face of the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out such serious lapses in the report of the enquiry officer which would negate the findings on the face of the record. The statement of ASI Girdhari Lal cannot be ignored nor could the petitioner contend that he had obtained the permission to leave, as the permission could be granted by the SHO and not by the ASI. The petitioner has also not been able to establish that he had accompanied his son to the clinic of the doctor. In the circumstances the inference that the petitioner had consumed liquor and had escaped from police vehicle when he was taken to the hospital for medical examination is founded upon preponderance of probabilities and cannot be faulted.