GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a constable in the Police Department, Haryana. A charge-sheet dated 16.2.1985 was issued to him alleging, that he was found under the influence of alcohol on 14.12.1984 when checking was conducted at the Police Post, Dundahera in District Gurgaon, at 8.30 P.M., by the District Inspector, Gurgaon. The charge-sheet also alleges, that on medical examination, it was detected that the petitioner was smelling of alcohol. The petitioner submitted his response thereto which has been placed on the record of the instant writ petition as Annexure P-2. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 26.3.1985, wherein it was concluded that it had been established that the petitioner had taken liquor on 14.12.1984 at 8.30 P.M. at the time when inspection was conducted by the District Inspector, Gurgaon.

(2.) The Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 9.4.1985, proposing the punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The reply thereto filed by the petitioner has been appended to the instant writ petition as Annexure P-4. Where after, the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, by an order dated 4.7.1985, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Dissatisfied with the punishment order dated 4.7.1985, the petitioner preferred an appeal, raising a large number of pleas, two of which have been highlighted during the course of arguments before this court, firstly, that at the time when inspection was conducted, the petitioner was not on duty. On the basis of the aforesaid factual assertion, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that drinking alcohol while off duty, cannot be considered as a mis-conduct on which a punishment can be inflicted on an employee. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently relied upon the statement of Dr. Jai Bhagwan, who was produced by the petitioner before the enquiry officer as DW2. The aforesaid witness while deposing before the enquiry officer had stated that one of the medicines prescribed by him on the OPD slip produced by the petitioner, had a slight alcoholic smell. However, the aforesaid drug had no intoxicating effect. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of DW-2 Dr. Jai Bhagwan was not considered by the punishing authority while inflicting the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, on 4.7.1985. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was declined by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon, on 26.11.1985. While disposing of the aforesaid appeal, it was acknowledged by the Appellate Authority, that the checking was conducted at the time when the petitioner was not on duty. However, according to the Appellate Authority, the aforesaid fact was irrelevant to the issue. The Appellate Authority, however, did not express any opinion in respect of the plea raised by the petitioner on the basis of the statement of Dr. Jai Bhagwan DW-2..

(3.) Dissatisfied with the appellate order dated 26.11.1985 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, raising the same pleas. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, by his order dated 12.6.1986.