STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAI DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 26.8.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that one act may not constitute gravest act of misconduct within Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) [for brevity, 'the Rules']. Keeping in view more than 27 years of service rendered by the writ petitioner-respondent, learned Single Judge has held that the Punishing Authority while inflicting the punishment of dismissal has failed to apply its mind to the fact that the writ petitionerrespondent has rendered long years of service and his pension would be forfeited by the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge also recorded a categorical finding that the Enquiry Officer or the Punishing Authority did not record any finding that the misconduct of the writ petitioner-respondent was of such a nature which would prove incorrigibility and complete unfitness for the police service. The learned Single Judge also found that merely because the writ petitioner-respondent consumed liquor was also not sufficient to inflict the extreme punishment of dismissal particularly when no finding has been recorded that he had consumed liquor while on duty. Further quoting Rule 18.5(7) of the Rules, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold as under:-

(2.) Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is no rule of law that single act of indiscipline like consuming liquor while on duty would not constitute a gravest act of misconduct. According to the learned counsel such a grave misconduct could attract the extreme punishment of dismissal. Mr. Sehgal has maintained that the past record of the writ petitionerrespondent as reflected in the order dated 17.11.1992 (P-3), would also show that he was awarded punishment of censure in 1990 for having been found under the influence of liquor when he was posted as MLA Guard at Shahbad. Another punishment of censure was again inflicted in 1992 for missing uniform articles and identity card while he was posted at Police Station, Shahbad. He also suffered another punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect in 1992 for unauthorised absence from duty from standing guard duty at the residence of Ex-Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha at Kurukshetra. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Punishing Authority reached the conclusion that on account of continuous misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police force stood proved.

(3.) A notice dated 16.10.1992 was issued to him reflecting his punishments inflicted in the past. He submitted his reply and personal hearing was also afforded to him.