ANIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. Assailing the impugned order of punishment and its affirmance by the appellate authority, Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him which was confined only to his consuming liquor and misbehaving in the police line in the state of his intoxication in non-duty hours.

(2.) Mr. Mukherjee has further submitted that from the materials on record, it can also be gathered that the solitary misconduct of consuming liquor and creating commotion in the night of 7.1.1988 at about 8.30 P.M. was proven. In this con-tent. he has also referred to the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Re-port as also the resultant order of punish-me' passed by the disciplinary authority.

(3.) In the considered opinion of this Court, the charge against the petitioner, being in two parts, namely, consuming liquor in non-duty hours was proved, inasmuch as, the petitioner was medically examined by the doctor at P.M.C.H., who had found the petitioner in a state of in-toxication. The other part of the charge that the petitioner had also misbehaved in the state of intoxication was not conclusively Droved, inasmuch as, no witness had turned up to support that the petitioner had abused anyone near the office of Sergeant Major.