PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constable Partap Singh No. 114 of GRP Ambala serving at GRP Lines Ambala City was punished with the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by Assistant Inspector General Govt. Railway Police Haryana Ambala Cantt. Vide order dated 8.1.1982 and he was also deprived of the emoluments which would have been payable to him on re-instatement but for the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period he remained under suspension. He was reinstated w.e.f. 8.1.1982 forenoon. Vide order dated 15.11.1983, Director General of Police/Inspector General Police, Haryana dismissed his appeal in toto. He filed suit for declaration against the State of Haryana to the effect that order dated 15.11.1983 received on 6.12.83 by virtue of which order dated 8.1.82 was confirmed by the Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police Haryana are illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the rules and norms of service and natural justice are not binding upon him and that he was entitled to the entire salary for the period during which he remained under suspension and further he was entitled to the release of two increments stopped with cumulative effect through those orders. It was alleged in the plaint that he was framed up falsely in a case due to his inimical relations with SHO, GRP Ambala which gave rise to an inquiry and eventual punishment upon him namely that on the night intervening 2/3.10.81 he was posted at GRP Ambala Cantt. Being sick, he was on medical rest for four days. He was taking rest in the barrack. While he was taking rest in the barrack as advised by the Medical Officer one Constable Ram Singh No. 27 started abusing him at the instance of the SHO, GRP Ambala Cantt and abused him by his mother and sister and gave him kicks and blows. When he brought the matter to the notice of the concerned officer on duty, who instead of taking Constable Ram Singh to task framed him in a false case that he abused Constable Ram Singh when he was under the influence of liquor and further he gave him injuries. Fact of the matter was that Constable Ram Singh had sprinkled liquor on his clothes and he brought it to the notice of the officer on duty that he had not taken liquor and had misbehaved with Constable Ram Singh instead Constable Ram Singh had sprinkled liquor on his clothes and abused him by his mother and sister and gave him kicks and blows. Officer on duty insisted upon getting him (Constable Partap Singh) medically examined. He was accordingly got medically examined. His medical examination was not in tune with the scientific method provided for a test for finding out whether a person is under the influence of liquor. After he was medically examined, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 7.10.1981. He made representation to the Inspector General of Police who ordered the said inquiry to be continued. Inquiry was not held in accordance with the law and rules governing the conduct of such inquiries. In the inquiry, he was found guilty because of acrimonious relations which he had with SHO, GRP Ambala Cantt. No misconduct which is the basis of the penalty was proved against him. It was alleged in the plaint that no inquiry could be ordered against, him as at the relevant time he was not on duty. He was on four days rest as advised by the Medical Officer. He was not fit for entrustment of any duty on the said date and time because he was on four days rest under medical advice. He was denied the reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the inquiry. There was no evidence that he was under the influence of liquor. He was fully conscious. His gait was not staggering. He was fully oriented with time and space and his speech was normal. From the mere fact that he was smelling of alcohol it could not be said that he has consumed liquor or that he was under the influence of liquor. There are glaring contradictions in the statement of the PWs examined in the inquiry as such no mis-conduct could be said to have been proved against him.

(2.) The defendant-State of Haryana contested the suit of the plaintiff it was denied that he was falsely framed in a case of misconduct at the instance of SHO, GRP Ambala Cantt. It was denied that the Inquiry Officer was under the influence of SHO, GRP Ambala Cantt. In the regular departmental inquiry charges were fully established against him. He made request for transfer of the inquiry to some other officer. His request was duly considered by the competent authority but was rejected as it was not supported by any good and valid reasons. Charges that he had taken liquor and had assaulted a fellow Constable Ram Singh No. 27 inside the barrack of the Police Station were fully established against him in the inquiry. It was denied that the inquiry held against him was not in tune with the law and procedure governing the conduct of such inquiries. He was justifiably placed under suspension by Assistant Inspector General, Govt. Railway Police, Haryana Ambala Cantt. His appeal was justifiably dismissed by the Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Haryana. He was although not on any specific duty at the relevant time, he was not licensed to take liquor and create brawl in the premises of police station and assault a fellow constable under the influence of liquor. Inquiry Officer gave finding of guilt against him after dispassionately appreciating the material on the inquiry file including the defence of the plaintiff. Report of the Medical Officer was duly considered in the light of the other evidence direct and circumstantial. Inference that the plaintiff was under the influence of liquor at the relevant time was not drawn from the mere opinion of the Medical Officer but from the analysis of entire evidence. Assistant Inspector General, Govt. Railway Police, Haryana considered every facet of the case before the imposed the punishment upon him. Similarly, Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Haryana considered all the points that arose for his consideration while considering his appeal and dismissing it.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :-