BHAGWAT PARSHAD Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGWAT Prasad petitioner, Constable No. 1751 Police Lines, Ambala, has filed this writ petition praying that the order of his dismissal be quashed.

(2.) ON 3rd of January 1965 he was posted in the Police Lines, Ambala, and when off duty was alleged to have taken liquor along with Constable Sam Pal. At about 10 P. M. in Barrack No. 1, Ram Pal, Constable No. 1669, had abused Kuldip Raj, constable No. 846. It was alleged that the petitioner was under the influence of drink and was noisy and did not desist even when told to do so by Foot Constable kuldip Raj. Kuldip Raj reported to Nanak Chand Reserve Inspector about the misbehaviour of the petitioner and of Ram Pal. It was about 10-30 P. M. that the reserve Inspector along with a Head Constable and a Foot Constable came to the barrack and found Ram Pal absent. The petitioner was in his bed and the Reserve inspector asked him to accompany him to the Police doctor in the Police Lines. The doctor examined the petitioner and was of the view that he had taken liquor. The same night the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala. He deputed Sub-Inspector Basant Singh to make an inquiry and the latter submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police on 12th of February 1965. According to Sub-Inspector Basant Singh, the petitioner and also Constable Ram pal were guilty of having taken liquor and creating rowdyism under its influence in the Police Lines premises. The report was considered by the Superintendent of police, who passed a detailed order on 4th of March, 1965. He came to the conclusion that Bhagwat Prasad petitioner had committed grave misconduct and in his view if Police Officers in Police Lines were allowed to drink, that would be the end of all discipline in the Police Force. The Superintendent of Police observed that the gravity of the misconduct of the petitioner was "of the most reprehensible nature" for which there could be only one punishment, namely dismissal from service. He accepted the testimony of Dr. Chaman Lal, in charge Police Hospital, ambala, as to the petitioner having been under the influence of drink. The statements of other prosecution witnesses were also considered. The defence of the petitioner was that he had pain in his chest and teeth and had gone to a private practitioner, Dr. Arjan Dev, who had applied chloroform spirit on his aching tooth. The Superintendent of Police rejected this plea and commented that petitioner, if actually in pain, ought to have consulted the police doctor in the police Lines rather than nave gone to a private practitioner in the city. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Ambala range, which was rejected. The Deputy Inspector-General thought that "creating rowdyism under the influence of liquor in the Police Lines was a matter for severe consideration. '' The petition for revision filed before the Additional Inspector-General of Police was also unsuccessful. The petitioner has now come up to this court and has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) HIS first contention is that his application, to the Inquiry Officer, Sub-Inspector basant Singh, remained un-heeded. In that application The had asked that he be supplied with the copies of the documents to be proved against him during the departmental inquiry. He had also asked for the copies of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses that had been recorded and also of the report sent to the district Magistrate, Ambala, for his sanction along with the actual sanction. As the statements of the prosecution witnesses had not yet been recorded, no copies could be supplied. There was no report to the District Magistrate. Ambala, for sanction, and the question of supplying a copy of any such report could not arise. There is really only one document, which is the report dated 3rd of January, 1965 of Sub-Inspector Basant Singh, the Inquiry Officer. In this report he has recorded the fact of the information he had received about the petitioner and the other constable having taken alcoholic drinks at night in the barracks and that he had taken the petitioner to the Police Doctor who had reported that the petitioner was examined and that he had taken liquor. The statement of Kuldip Raj Foot constable was recorded by the Inquiry Officer on 16th of January 1965, wherein he had stated inter alia that the petitioner was smelling of liquor and he started making noise. The petitioner cross-examined Kuldip Raj, but did not cross-examine him with a view to challenge the latter's statement as to his having taken liquor or his having made noise. The statement of Kuldip Raj regarding this aspect was not challenged.