HEERA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for Quashing impugned order dated 25 -04 -2000 passed by respondent No.4 where by the petitioner was dismissed from service and order dated 18 -06 -2000 passed by respondent no. 3 by which the departmental appeal preferred by him in this regard is also dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable on 2 -01 -974 with the U.P. Police at Nainital. Subsequently, he was posted at Pithoragarh in the year 1983 and thereafter in Tehri Garhwal in 1990. Lastly he was performing his duties in the District of Pauri Garhwal since 1994. On 1 -04 -1999, the petitioner was allegedly implicated in a case and crime No. 244 of 1999 registered at Police Station, Srinagar under section 34 of Police Act with the allegations that while on duty as Treasury Guard on 01 -04 -1999 at 9:00 P.M., the petitioner was allegedly found in a drunken state, making nuisance, shouting loudly and using abusive language (copy of the report at Annexure -3 to the writ petition). On said charge, the petitioner was placed under suspension (copy Annexure -4 to the writ petition) by Shri Piyush Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal and Shri Narain Dutt Joshi, Reserve Police Inspector was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry (copy Annexure - 5 to the writ petition) who recommended departmental inquiry against the petitioner. However, after preliminary inquiry, the suspension order passed against the petitioner was revoked and meanwhile, Shri Vijay Bhatia who took over as superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, directed to initiate the departmental inquiry against the petitioner and Shri D K. Thapliyal, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal was asked to draft the charges under Section 7 of Police Regulation 1861. Later on Shri Hukam Singh. Dy. Superientendent of Police conducted the inquiry and recorded the statements of Head Constable Shri Prem Kant Misra, Constable Rajbir Singh and Sub -Inspector Rajkishore Singh but no public witness was examined. It is alleged in the writ petition that the statement of witnesses recorded were contradictory. The Inquiry Report (copy Annexure -7 to the writ petition) was submitted against the petitioner by the Dy. Superintendent of Police holding the petitioner guilty. It is alleged in the writ petition that the Inquiry Officer did not care to consider the report of the Doctor about consciousness and normal speech of the petitioner mentioned in the Medical Report (copy of Medical Report at Annexure -8 to the writ petition). Superintendent of Police (respondent No.4) on the basis of Inquiry Report dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 25 -04 -2000 (copy Annexure -l to the writ petition). Against said order, the petitioner preferred the departmental appeal before appellate authority i.e. Dy. Inspector General, Garhwal Range, Dehradun who upheld the punishment and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18 -06 -2000 (copy Annexure -2 to the writ petition). It appears that the petitioner made a revision before the Inspector General, Meerut zone, Meerut (copy Annexure -10 to the writ petition) but to no avail. Meanwhile, in the criminal case No: 244 of 1999 under section 34 of Police Act, Shri Prashant Joshi, Learned Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, on 18 -11 -2001 (one year after punishment awarded by departmental authorities) acquitted the petitioner from the charge (copy of judgment Annexure -11 to the writ petition). It is alleged in 'the writ petition that dismissal order passed by the Department is unjust and unfair and relying the principle of law laid down in M. Paul Anthony V/s Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1992) 2 -U.P.L.B.E.C. 1280, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4, a counter affidavit has been filed in which the appointment and postings of the petitioner are not denied. But it is alleged that on the date of incident i.e. 01 -04 -1999 at about 9:00 P.M. when the petitioner was on duty as Treasury Guard, in a drunken state, created nuisance on which Crime No. 244/99 was registered against him under section 34 of Police Act, with Police Station, Srinagar. It is also admitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension immediately and the inquiry was ordered. Defending conclusions of the Departmental enquiry, it is stated in the counter affidavit that full and fair opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Before coming to the conclusion in departmental enquiry, it is further stated in counter affidavit that under para 373 A of Police Regulations, during duty hours the policemen are prohibited from taking alcohol but the petitioner not only remained alcoholic at the time of duty but also indulged in acts of indiscipline. Lastly, it is stated that the impugned order of dismissal and order of dismissal of appeal are just and in accordance with the law: