CHANAN PAL EX-CONSTABLE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point raised in this writ petition is as to whether a single act of being absent from duty and found to be under the influence of alcohol during this time, would amount to an act of grave misconduct to merit dismissal from service of a member of the disciplined force like police or not.

(2.) THE facts shortly stated are that on 2. 9. 1989, the petitioner who was working as a Constable in Haryana Police since 27. 10. 1976, was deployed in Flying Squad, found to be absent from duty and under the influence of alcohol during this period. He was got medically examined from a Doctor who declared him to be under the influence of alcohol. Regular Departmental enquiry on the above allegations was ordered against him by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Welfare Inspector, Karnal, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Petitioner was appraised of the allegations made against him List of P. Ws. and other documents relied upon were also served upon him. After recording the evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report dated 6 6. 1990 Annexure P/6 showing the allegations having been fully established. Copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him by the appointing authority proposing the punishment of dismissal from service After giving an opportunity of hearing, the appointing authority, passed a detailed order Annexure P/8 holding that the defaulter indulged himself in the act of gravest act of misconduct by consuming liquor while on duty' and awarded the extreme penalty of dismissal from service Against this order, an appeal was carried to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was dismissed vide Annexure P/10. Revision was taken to the Inspector General of Police which was also dismissed on 30. 10. 1991 vide Annexure P/12 Aggrieved against the orders Annexure P/8, P/10 and P/12, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IT was argued by Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Advocate, that the charge framed against the petitioner was false and quantum of punishment viza viz offence, if at all proved, was ill-proportionate.