Shri Rattan Lal vs The State of Haryana and others

I.S. Tiwana, J.—The petitioner who was employed as a Constable in the Haryana Police Force impugns the order of his dismissal from service dated 28th August, 1975 (Annexure P 4) and its affirmance in appeal and revision vide orders Annexures P6 and P8. As a result of the enquiry that was initiated against him, he was found to be under the influence of liquor at about 105 A.M. on the night intervening 20th/1st December, 1974 This, according to the punishing authority, was "an act of misconduct of the gravest sort" and amounted to "gravest indiscipline " The facts which are otherwise not in dispute are as follows.

S.I. Ram Dev who was on a checking round at the relevant time found that the petitioner and two other colleagues of his, namely, Constables Om Parkash and Nand Singh, who were members of the Guard force deputed to guard the Malkhana in the Old Treasury Building at Rohtak, were under the influence of liquor. Under the orders of the said S.I. they were got medically examined and so far as the petitioner is concerned, the opinion of Dr. Goyal who examined him was as follows: --

Patient Rattan Lal about 40 years, Male, is fully conscious and well-oriented with time and space Pulse (sic) per minute, blood pressure 130/70. He is talking well. Gait normal. Patient emits smell of alcohol in deep respiration Opinion : He has taken alcohol but not under due effect of alcohol.

It is again the undisputed position that rule 18.5(7) of the Police Rules, 1934, Volume II, regulates the roster of duties of permanent guards, i.e., who are not relieved daily. This rule reads as follows:--

A duty roster shall be maintained for etch standing guard in which shall be recorded the rotation of duties and the particular hours of duty of each man of the guard. An entry once made in this duty roster will stand so long as the time and rotation of duties remain the same. Any alteration in the time or rotation of duties will necessitate a fresh entry in the duty roster.

According to the roster referred to above, the petitioner''s duty on the 20th/21st December, 1974 was from 9.00 A.M. to 12 noon and then from 9.00 to 12 midnight Constable Kanahya Lal was to follow the petitioner on duty and it was he who was guarding the Malkhna at the crucial moment when S I. Ramdev appeared there for routine checking.

One of the primary contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the above-noted facts or the finding recorded against the petitioner that at the opportune time he was smelling alcohol is to be accepted, the same does not amount to any misconduct as he was neither on duty at that moment nor was misbehaving in any other manner The learned counsel maintains that even as per the medical report, the petitioner but for the alcoholic smell was found to be normal in all respects. These submissions of the learned counsel are met by Mr. B.L. Bishnoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-authorities on the plea that a police officer is supposed to be on 24 hours'' duty and, thus even if the petitioner was not performing the duty of a Sentry at the Malkhana he is to be presumed to be on duty. I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. If that be so, then all members of the Police Force, high or low, have to be taken on duty during the course of their entire service right from the day of their enrollment and if consumption of alcohol has again to be taken as a misconduct then probably most of them can any time be held guilty of the same. To everybody''s knowledge, the factual position is entirely different. Otherwise also I am of the considered view that mere consumption of alcohol even if this has to be taken as an established fact in the case in hand-does not amount to any misconduct known to the Service Rules. Merely because an employee is found under the influence of liquor without anything more, does not, to my mind, render the employee to any such disciplinary action. The learned Additional Advocate General it not in a position to bring to my notice any precedent or principle on the basis of which it can be said that mere consumption of liquor by an employee, particularly when he is not on duty, amounts to misconduct or misbehaviour. It rather looks somewhat intriguing that the State and its functionaries who treat excise revenue as one of its major sources of income should hold that mere consumption of alcohol by its employees is some sort of misconduct.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and set aside the impugned orders with costs which I determine at Rs. 300/-. As a necessary consequence of this order of mine, the petitioner is further held entitled to all the consequential reliefs that flow therefrom.