Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25540 of 2013 Petitioner :- Chhatra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
1. Present Sri V.K. Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Gautam, counsel for petitioner.
2. This writ petition has been filed against judgment and order dated 18.1.2013 passed by Sri Hari Krishna Dubey, U.P. State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), dismissing claim petition no. 644 of 2008 filed by petitioner.
3. A perusal of record shows that petitioner is a constable in U.P. Police Force. While posted at J.P. Nagar, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.9.2006 which contained following charges :-
**vkidks ,rn~}kjk fuEu vkjksiksa ls vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gS fd **tc vki iqfyl ykbu ts-ih-uxj eas iqfyl ykbu ts-ih-uxj eas fu;qDr Fks] rks fn0&21-5-06 dks vkids }kjk 'kjkc dk lsou dj gaxkek fd;k x;k ftlds laca/k esa jiV ua0&35 le; 13-30 cts ij rLdjk f'dk;rh vafdr fd;k x;k gS ,oa esMhdy ijh{k.k ls 'kjkc dk lsou djus dh iqf"V gqbZ gS] blds vfrfjDr vkids }kjk iqu% fnukad 18-6-06 dh jkf= x.kuk ij 'kjkc dk lsou dj gaxkek fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds laca/k esa iqfyl ykbu ds jks-vke esa jiV ua0&49 le; 20-00 cts ij rLdjk f'kdk;rh vafdr fd;k x;k gS] vr% vkids }kjk iqfyl tSls vuq'kkflr cy dk lnL; gksrs gq, 'kjkc dk lsou dj gaxkek@vHknzrk dh xbZ gSA vkidk bl d`R; iqfyl foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZ gS rFkk vkidk ;g d`R; vius drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] vuq'kklughurk] LosPNkpkfjrk] voKk] izekn dk Li"V ifjpk;d gSA** You are hereby charged with following charges that “when you appointed in police lines, J.P. Nagar on 21.5.2006 ruckus was created by you after taking liquor in respect thereof a complaint was lodged at Report No. 35 at 13:30 hours. From medical examination, consumption of liquor was found proved. Besides again on 18.06.2006 in the night after drinking you created ruckus, complaint whereof is endorsed in case diary at Report No. 49 at 20:00 hours. Therefore, being a member of disciplined force, you have created ruckus after consuming liquor and thereby maligned image of police department and yours this act shows extreme carelessness, indiscipline, vagrancy, disobedience and laxity.
(English translation by Court)
4. In departmental enquiry, charge against petitioner was found proved and hence disciplinary authority imposed major punishment of dismissal of service vide order dated 7.4.2007. Appeal preferred against punishment order was dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of Police (srespondent 4) vide order dated 24.07.2007. Further Revision preferred against Appellate order was also rejected by Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly vide order dated 31.1.2008.
5. Said orders were challenged by petitioner before Tribunal by way of filing Claim Petition No. 644 of 2008 and by impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2013, Tribunal has dismissed claim petition hence petitioner has come up in this writ petition.
6. Counsel for petitioner could not point out any error whatsoever in decision making process. Tribunal has also found that charges were fully proved against petitioner on the basis of evidence led before Enquiry Officer therefore, punishment was quite justified.
7. Before this Court, counsel for petitioner argued that there was medical report filed before Enquiry Officer which shows that petitioner was not in a state of intoxication and, therefore finding recorded by Punishing Authority, Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal is incorrect.
8. We find that the medical report, at page 99 of this writ petition, issued by Dr. Ashok Kumar, Medical Officer, PHC, Amroha, District J.P. Nagar, recorded opinion of said doctor as under :-
“Opinion- Clinically in my opinion Pt. Mr. Chhatra Pal Singh consumed Alcohol. But he is not under Toxic effect/influence of Alcohol.”
9. Thus, it was established that petitioner did consume alcohol. This fact coupled with other incidents of creating ruckus clearly established that petitioner was guilty of misconduct and disciplinary authority has rightly punished him imposing punishment of dismissal.
10. It is further contended by counsel for petitioner that authorities have passed impugned punishment without application of mind.
11. Having gone through impugned punishment order, appellate order, revisional order and order of Tribunal, we find that orders passed by authorities as well as Tribunal are well speaking and reasoned and it could not be shown by learned counsel for petitioner that the same have been passed without application of mind, except of making a bare submission.
12. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Siddhant Sahu