Suvindra Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner was a Police Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Service. The petitioner has been dismissed and the revisional orders arising out thereof are subject matter of controversy before this Court which have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent authorities have failed to prove the charge of intoxication on the petitioner and even otherwise keeping in view the gravity of the charge the punishment of dismissal/removal is disproportionate.

The facts which are undisputed are that on 29th July, 2006 the petitioner was on guard duty at the State Bank of India Main Branch Ghazipur. While on duty a shot was fired from the rifle of the petitioner that caused an alarm and the other guards on duty including the head guard came to the spot and enquired about the same. They immediately telephoned the concerned Circle Officer who also arrived at the spot whereafter suspecting the petitioner to be under the influence of alcohol, he was immediately sent for medical examination to the Government Hospital. The petitioner was medically examined and the concerned doctor during the enquiry deposed that the petitioner was examined by him who was in his senses but the smell of alcohol from his mouth was clearly decipherable at the time of medical examination. Based on the said charge and the evidence aforesaid as well as the statement of the other constables the petitioner was subjected to the enquiry and finding was recorded that the petitioner was guilty of having consumed alcohol during duty hours which was gross indiscipline. Consequently the petitioner was issued a show cause notice whereafter he was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 31st January, 2007. An appeal filed against the same and a revision thereafter have failed whereafter the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the enquiry which was conducted was not in conformity with law inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer has not correctly appreciated the statement of the three other constables who do not indicate that the petitioner had ever consumed alcohol. It is therefore submitted that non-consideration of this aspect vitiates the impugned order.

Learned Counsel further submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments the charge that had been established, the punishment meted out is extremely harsh and he relies on the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Sahdev Singh v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and Ors. reported in 2001 (2) LBESR 269 (All). Further reliance has been placed on a Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rattan Lal Ex-Constable v. The State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 1983 (2) SLR 159 and a subsequent decision in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 1983 (2) SLR 645 of the same High Court and the decision in the case of No. 913126828 Ex. Constable Driver, Girwar Singh Tomar Vs. Union of India (UOI), .

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that during the enquiry it was found as a matter of fact that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and he had been promptly taken to the hospital for medical examination which was also during duty hours itself. He therefore submits that the nature of the charge being such grave and in view of the fact that the petitioner did not have a very decent past record, keeping in view the nature of punishments awarded to him in 1986, 1988, 1989, 1999, 1992, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate.

Having considered the submissions raised and the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is evident from the record that the petitioner was found to have consumed alcohol while on duty hours as a guard at the State Bank of India Main Branch Ghazipur. This consumption of alcohol was got medically verified and the medical verification report is on record. During enquiry the said report was corroborated by the statement of the Medical Officer concerned who did state that the smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of the petitioner at the time of the medical examination.

What is peculiar is that while submitting his reply to the show cause notice the petitioner has nowhere denied the aforesaid consumption of alcohol and the presence of the smell from the mouth of the petitioner during duty hours. The plea which has been taken is that he had consumed a cough syrup and some homeopathic medicines on account of his minor ailment. However, the said statement nowhere advances any such plea that the petitioner had never consumed any alcohol nor his mouth was smelling during duty hours. The defence, which appears to have been taken in addition to the theory of consuming the cough syrup, was that the doctor had found the petitioner to be in his senses and the aforesaid plea was sought to be substantiated by the statement of the other three constables who did not state that they ever the petitioner to have consumed alcohol.

The aforesaid defence of the petitioner cannot be accepted in law inasmuch as in the absence of any denial of having consumed alcohol the theory of having consumed a cough syrup does not stand to reason and, therefore the Enquiry Officer was right in his conclusion that the petitioner had consumed alcohol.

The aforesaid fact stands corroborated by the statement of the Medical Officer. Merely because the three constables had not seen the petitioner having consumed alcohol would not absolve the petitioner of the said charge nor does the statement in any way dilute the medical examination report which corroborates the consumption of alcohol by the petitioner.

The evidence led also establishes that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol during duty hours. These facts are borne out from the enquiry proceedings and the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority. Therefore this distinguishes the case of the petitioner from the case of Girwar Singh (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

So far as the gravity of charge is concerned the present case is clearly of an incident where the petitioner was on duty to guard the State Bank of India which houses and accommodates the entire cash of the district. It was therefore a sensitive duty. Having consumed alcohol during duty hours, while on duty and fired a shot, may be mistakenly, indicates the petitioner''s physical condition at the time when he was found under the influence of alcohol. This charge therefore in my opinion was grave enough so as to warrant the extreme penalty. On the facts of this case there is no cause which may dilute the merit of the gravity of charge so as to investigate into the question of disproportional .

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.