Shyam Prakash Tewari vs State of U.P. and Others

Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.3.2008, passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in the claim petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.9.1992 of dismissal from service.

Earlier, the petitioner had approached before the tribunal impugning the order dated 23.9.1992 and the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court by judgment and order dated 6.8.1997 had allowed the writ petition No. 21(S/B) of 1998 and remanded back the matter to consider the controversy afresh and now by the impugned order, the claim petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, against which the present writ petition.

The petitioner, a Constable in PAC, was posted in Kanpur Dehat. His platoon was sent to Bilhaur. Because of delay, on the way, the Company Commander permitted the petitioner and others of the platoon to have their meal in a hotel situated on G.T. Road on 24.2.1992. The allegation against the petitioner is that when he went to take meal in the hotel situated on G.T. Road, he consumed liquor, misbehaved with the owner of the hotel and also misbehaved with his colleagues as well as the Company Commander in the state of intoxication. The petitioner exhibited impertinency on being interrogated by the Company Commander. It is further alleged that on the very next day, i.e. 25.2.1992, he left the headquarter without prior permission of the Company Commander after giving application to the court Moharrir.

A preliminary enquiry was held by one Shri Udai Pratap, Assistant Commandant, 37th Battalion P.A.C., Kanpur who reported that the petitioner is, prima facie guilty of allegation with regard to consumption of liquor and misbehaviour with his colleagues. The Company Commander by order dated 24.3.1992 directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (In short, 1991 Rules). A charge-sheet dated 8.4.1992 was served on the petitioner, in response to which he submitted a reply on 18.4.1992. The enquiry officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, Shri Abhai Singh, Company Commander, Constable Ram Gopal, HC Raja Ram Mishra, Sri Udai Pratap, Assistant Commandant, Shri Guru Bachan Singh, Constable Narendra Bahadur Singh, Constable Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya, Constable Jai Prakash Singh, Nai Ram Sewak. The petitioner''s statement was recorded in defence and thereafter the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer Shri Kishori Lal, Deputy Commandant on 29.8.1992. The punishing authority being agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 31.8.1992, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 7.9.1992 and after considering the reply, final order of punishment dated 23.9.1992 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service.

In appeal, the appellate authority, i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of P.A.C. has rejected the appeal by order dated 28.11.1992.

The tribunal observed that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature. He took alcohol at public place, misbehaved with the owner and servants of the hotel as well as misbehaved with his colleagues and vomited on the bed of hotel, occupied by Jai Prakash Constable. He also misbehaved with the Platoon Commander and on the very next day, he left his duty without prior sanction of leave. The tribunal further observed that the conduct of the petitioner was shockingly not such which may call for minor punishment.

While assailing the impugned order, Shri Amit Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tribunal has not decided the controversy taking into account the letter and spirit of the earlier judgment of this Court where this Court has directed that mere statement with regard to consumption of liquor will not suffice and the evidence should be considered with regard to the order passed by the disciplinary authority. He further submits that no medical report was obtained with regard to consumption of liquor. Hence, the allegation against the petitioner is based on unfounded facts. Supplementing his argument, he also submits that the enquiry officer has not recorded a finding with regard to intoxication and mis-behaviour.

We have considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

In exercise of power of judicial review, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not, ordinarily, go into reappraisal of evidence on record. In view of the settled proposition of law, it is the decision making process which should be looked into by the Court and not the finding of fact recorded by the authorities or the tribunal.

In the present case, the procedure prescribed by law with regard to disciplinary enquiry seems to have been followed. A finding has been recorded that the statement of several persons (supra) were recorded who supported that the petitioner had consumed liquor and misbehaved with the hotel staff and his own colleague. A perusal of the enquiry report also shows that the witnesses stated before the enquiry officer that the petitioner had consumed liquor and he was in intoxication state of mind.

It has been vehemently argued that in absence of medical report, no finding could have been recorded with regard to intoxication state. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner could have got weight in case the allegations would not have been proved by the eyewitnesses who are about more than half a dozen and are the petitioner''s own colleagues during the movement of the company from one place to other place.

During the course of examination, the petitioner stated that he did not consume liquor but the statement given by the eye-witnesses and his own colleagues shows that he was in intoxicated state of mind. He had misbehaved with his senior Company Commander and the enquiry officer has also noted that he left the company without prior sanction of leave on the very next date. It has been noted by the enquiry officer that the constable Shyam Prakash Tewari, i.e. the petitioner had ordered to serve several things and without making any payment of the food consumed in the hotel, he left the hotel premises. Such act on the part of the petitioner who is a member of disciplined force, seems to be highly objectionable. Every government servant, more so when he is a member of any police force or para military force or military is expected to behave properly at public place being custodian of law.

Though the petitioner''s counsel tried to submit that the petitioner was falsely implicated by the Company Commander but there appears to be no material which may make out a case for false implication. Why the petitioner''s own colleague, more than half a dozen in number as well as the Company Commander shall make a statement before the enquiry officer with regard to the petitioner''s serious mis-conduct at public place. There appears to be no motive for false implication. Merely because no medical report was obtained shall not dilute the charges.

The attention of this Court has not been invited to any procedural illegality which may have been committed by the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry. It is not for this Court to reappraise the evidence on record on trivial ground. In a decision making process, the respondents do not seem to have committed any illegality during the course of enquiry or awarding the punishment.

In view of above, the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.