LAWS(P&H)-1998-8-183

PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On August 28, 1998
PARTAP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, constable in Police, was dismissed from the service vide order dated July 19, 1988 passed by the Director General of Police. He prays that the order be quashed and that he be reinstated in service. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the year 1973. In the year 1986 the petitioner was posted at Rohtak. It was alleged that he had consumed alcohol on December 26, 1986 at about 7.00 p.m. and that he had abused different people in a "drunken condition". The petitioner was charge-sheeted. An enquiry was held. He was given an opportunity to show cause. He was also granted personal hearing by the Superintendent of Police. Vide order dated September 13, 1987, a penalty of "stoppage of four future increments" was awarded to the petitioner. He filed an appeal. The Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated November 19, 1987 reduced the penalty to stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Director General of Police. On consideration of the matter, he took the view that the petitioner's misconduct was serious and called for "a severe penalty". Consequently, on April 9, 1988 a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the penalty be not enhanced to that of dismissal. The petitioner submitted his reply. Vide order dated July 19, 1988 the Director General of Police ordered the petitioner's dismissal from service. Hence this petition.

(3.) The petitioner inter alia alleges that the action of the respondents in awarding the penalty is violative of the Punjab Police Rules. In particular, it has been pointed out that the provisions of Rule 16.2(1) have not been kept in view. Furthermore, it has also been averred that consumption of alcohol while the petitioner was not on duty did not constitute any misconduct so as to call for the imposition of any penalty.