CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by a Constable in the Police Department for quashing the order dated 26th December, 1998 by which he was dismissed from service, the order dated 3rd March, 2000 by which the Appeal filed by him against this order was dismissed and the order dated 13th June, 2000 by which the Revision was also dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner who had been appointed as a Constable on 3rd December, 1988 was issued a charge sheet dated 22nd September, 1998 that after consuming liquor in the Police Line Barracks he had not only indulged in indecent behaviour with another Constable Ajay Kant, but had also entered into an altercation with him and that the medical examination report confirmed that he was in an inebriated state. He was, therefore, called upon to submit a reply because such conduct amounted to indiscipline and insolence in the discharge of his duties. The petitioner submitted his reply on 2nd October, 1998. The Enquiry Officer examined Sri B.R. Singh, Circle Officer, Sri Sheel Kumar Singh, Pratisar Nirikshak, Sri Happu Singh, Constable, Surendra Singh and the petitioner and after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and the evidence on record, concluded in his report dated 8th October, 1998 that the petitioner on 16th June, 1998 at about 10.00 AM consumed liquor and while in an inebriated state not only behaved indecently but also indulged in altercation with another Constable Sri Ajay Kant. He, therefore, recommended that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. A show-cause notice dated 18th November, 1998 was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted a detailed reply dated 4th December, 1998 and after considering the evidence on record and the fact that during the preliminary enquiry and also before the Enquiry Officer the petitioner had admitted that he had consumed liquor and there was an altercation with another Constable Sri Ajay Kant and the fact that even on earlier two occasions minor punishment had been awarded to him for consumption of liquor the petitioner was dismissed from service under the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules'). The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Rules which was rejected by the order dated 3rd March, 2000. The Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Rules was also dismissed by a detailed order dated 13th June, 2000.

(3.) The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of punishment is highly disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner and in support of his contention, he has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 157 and Ram Autar Singh Vs. State Public Service Tribunal & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1542 and decisions of this Court in Sahdev Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & Ors, 2001 (2) ESC 511, Mirja Barkat Ali Vs. Inspector General of Police, Allahabad & Ors., 2002 (3) AWC 2339, Amar Jeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2004 (1) ESC 366 and Sheo Prakash Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (3) AWC 2233. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was a Constable in a disciplined force and he had not only consumed liquor but had also indulged in altercation with another Constable Sri Ajay Kant and, therefore, in such circumstances, when the disciplinary authority after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case had imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which order was confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, this Court should not interfere with the said order.