HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was recruited as a Constable in Police Department on 26.2.1962 and had more than 33 years of service to his credit, when on the ground of misconduct, he was dismissed from service on 21.8.1992. In the present writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 21.8.1992, Annexure P1, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, whereby he was dismissed from service. Petitioner had preferred an appeal and vide order dated 18.3.1993, Annexure P2, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar dismissed the appeal upholding the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision-cum-mercy petition, which was also dismissed vide order at Annexure P3, dated 5.8.1994. Petitioner also seeks quashing of orders at Annexures P2 and P3.

(2.) The brief facts can be gathered from impugned order dated 21.8.1992, Annexure P1. It is stated therein that a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, as he on 2.3.1992 while on guard duty at the residence of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, was found under the influence of liquor during the checking conducted by SI Sukhdev Singh, Incharge Police Post City Fatehabad. The petitioner was also medico legally examined at General Hospital, Fatehabad. Shri Ram Gobind, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tohana conducted the enquiry and recorded the statements of HC Balwant Singh, C. Bhup Singh, Manger Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, HC Jagdish Chander, Dr.A.K.Dadhich, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Fatehabad and SI Sukhdev Singh. These witnesses were cross-examined at the instance of the petitioner. Before the Punishing Authority, a plea was raised that in the present case, the enquiry was not conducted with the concurrence of District Magistrate under Rule 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Rules'), therefore, the petitioner cannot be punished. This plea was negated by the Punishing Authority by observing that in case, the misconduct was not involved in relation to public dealing, concurrence of District Magistrate was not necessary. The Punishing Authority took into consideration the circumstance that as per opinion of the doctor, the petitioner was under the influence of liquor and he refused to give blood and urine samples. It was inferred that while on duty in uniform, the petitioner had consumed the alcohol, thus, the same constituted misconduct and was liable to strict action. Accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service. As stated earlier, the appeal and the revision-cum-mercy petition were also dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that by using the word 'gravest act of misconduct', the petitioner has been denied the fruits of 33 years of service and, thus, the punishment awarded is very harsh and not in commensurate with the misconduct attributed to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon Harjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2007 9 SCC 582 wherein Rule 16.2 of the Rules was noticed that dismissal should be awarded only for gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award, regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. Furthermore, it cannot be said that solitary act on the part of the petitioner was such that he had become incorrigible and unfit for police service. There is no previous incident proved on record when the petitioner had committed any misconduct. Therefore, mere use of the words of the section for complying with the principles thereof is necessarily, is not the interest of justice. This in nutshell is the dictum of law laid down in Harjit Singh's case . Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjit Singh's case held that for absence from duty from 9.00 P.M. till 2.00 A.M., the delinquent constable should be compulsorily retired instead of dismissing him from service. Similarly, in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, 1997 2 SCC 550 for absence from duty for a period of 11 months, the punishment was converted from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. A Division Bench of this Court in SI Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2008 4 SCT 72 has held that ordinarily, the Court will not alter the quantum of punishment inflicted by the employer on its employee, unless it is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct or any other sufficient reason. In SI Surinder Singh's case for willful absence, the delinquent employee was dismissed from service. The punishment of dismissal was converted into voluntary retirement. For arriving at the above conclusion, in SI Surinder Singh's case , the Division Bench had relied upon State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, 1992 4 SCC 54. Para 8 of the same reads as under :-