BADLU RAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working in the Haryana Police Force as a Head Constable. He was sent for refresher course at Kala Teetar when the incident in question took place. He was called for special roll call at 10.30 p.m. on 26.1.1985. It is alleged that he was found under the influence of liquor and uttered flighty words against the officers. He was found to have consumed alcohol. Enquiry was held against him and the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 6.6.1985 i.e. from the date of passing of order Annexure P/3 was imposed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not on duty at the time when the incident took place. He also argued that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges alleged against him.

(3.) NOW the question is whether he was under the influence of liquor. The medical examination did prove that the petitioner had consumed liquor. However, that by itself does not show that he was under the influence of liquor.