JOKHI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated June, 17, 2009 passed by the disciplinary authority, the order dated September, 29, 2009 passed by the Appellate authority and the final order dated June, 22, 2010 passed by the divisional authority whereby and whereunder the service of the petitioner has been terminated since the charges against the petitioner were proved and the petitioner was found guilty of such charges. The petitioner has further prayed for cancellation of such orders and for issuance of a writ for mandamus, commanding the respondents concerned and each one of them to re-instate the petitioner forthwith in the post of constable with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The specific charge, as has been set out in the article of charge against the petitioner, is that the petitioner abused his superiors in filthy languages under the influence of liquor and he also could not join his duties due to abnormal condition on account of intoxication and lastly since the date of his joining as a constable of Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Durgapur Steel Plant on and from 25th June, 1987, he was found guilty on very many counts including one major and eight minor punishments and thereby he could not prove himself to be worthy of a member of disciplined force. All the aforesaid charges were proved against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against such findings of the disciplinary authority but the appeal was turned down by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the highest authority for review of such order but the review application of the petitioner was also rejected by the divisional authority. Finally, the petitioner was terminated from his service on the basis of such report of disciplinary authority.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he was under the influence of liquor and he abused his seniors in filthy languages under the influence of liquor. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further contended that the prosecuting authority could not produce any document to show that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor at the relevant point of time yet the disciplinary authority has found the petitioner guilty of being intoxicated at the relevant point of time.