NARINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the report of the Inquiry Officer (Annexure P-1), order of punishment (Annexure P-4) and order of dismissal of his appeal (Annexure P-6). He has also prayed for grant of consequential benefits.

(2.) Facts of the case show that the petitioner had joined service as Constable in the Police Department of the Government of Haryana on 1.7,1981. In the year 1992, he was posted at Police Lines, Kurukshetra. By an order dated 3.8.1992 of the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, he was suspended. At the same time disciplinary inquiry was ordered against him. A chargesheet was served upon the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer with the allegation that he had not reported for duty at the residence of Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, had come to the Police Lines after consuming alcohol and had misbehaved with the senior Officer. It was also alleged that he was carrying a small knife. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure P-1) holding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. The Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and issued show-cause notice dated 25.1.1993 proposing dismissal of the petitioner from service. Petitioner filed reply dated 8.2.1993 and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 25.2.1993 dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Ambala Range, Ambala. That appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 5.5.1993. A revision-cum-mercy petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 1.3.1994.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the enquiry proceedings as well as the order of punishment on the ground that the Inquiry Officer did not comply with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was given to him and he was not allowed to lead evidence in defence. Order of punishment has been challenged on the ground of violation of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , which according to the petitioner, are applicable to the employee of the State of Haryana in the police department. Appellate order has been challenged on the ground that it does not contain reasons. On merits of the charges levelled against him, the petitioner has pleaded that the whole case was made up against him because he had expressed his inability to give duty at the residence of the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, on account of illness. Petitioner has denied the allegation of having consumed alcohol by saying that he had in fact taken Ayurvedic medicine due to illness.