IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1482 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
G DHANANJAYA SON OF H GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING BEHIND M.S.R. SCHOOL 2ND CROSS, THYAGARAJANAGAR KADUR-577548 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE BANGRASIA, BHOOPAL MADHYA PRADESH-458441.
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTRE, NEEMUCH MADHYA PRADESH-458441.
3. THE COMMANDANT CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTRE, NEEMUCH-458441 MADHYA PRADESH.
(BY SRI.H JAYAKARA SHETTY, CGC) ... RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.8536/2013, DATED 17/04/2018 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8536 of 2013 by which, the writ petition was rejected, the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the third respondent- Disciplinary Authority; order dated 06.06.2012 passed by the second respondent-Appellate Authority and order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the first respondent- Revisional Authority and for a mandamus to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Constable, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1991. While he was working in Group Center at Madhya Pradesh, a charge memo dated 03.09.2009 came to be issued alleging that on 03.08.2009, the petitioner was not present on duty at the place of his posting as Quarter Guard. The second charge alleged was that the petitioner has committed disobedience of the order by not being not present on duty as Quarter Guard on 03.08.2009 which amounts to misconduct. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the alleged charges. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry, submitted enquiry report holding that the charges are proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was issued with second show cause notice on 12.07.2010. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed the order of punishment dated 06.08.2010 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of dismissal before the second respondent. The said appeal also came to be rejected by order dated 06.06.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition and the revision petition also came to be rejected by order dated 26.11.2012.
3. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order of dismissal and orders of Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority contending that the petitioner has not committed any lapses as alleged in the memorandum of charge. It is further contended that as ordered he reported for duty at 5.15 p.m. and collected the rifle at 5.30 p.m. on 03.08.2009 as such, there is no disobedience as alleged. It is also stated that the petitioner had never consumed alcohol during his duty hours and the finding of the Enquiry Officer to that effect is not correct. It is his case that the witness have stated that the petitioner was not under intoxication when he reported to duty. The finding to the effect that the petitioner had consumed alcohol during the course of discharge of duty has no basis.
4. The respondents filed statement of objections contending that charges are proved against the petitioner on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record. It is also stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender and even after providing many opportunities to improve has not improved. Every opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during the course of enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment for the proved misconduct and the Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities have rightly rejected the appeal and revision respectively. The Respondents have further stated that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and was not in a position to perform his Quarter Guard duty. The learned Single Judge considering the material on record rejected the writ petition which is impugned in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the writ appeal papers.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of learned Single Judge is the result of non-scrutiny of material on record. It is contended that on 03.08.2009, the petitioner had pain in waist, hence he had taken rest. Without noticing the petitioner’s health position, he was allotted Quarter Guard duty. When he was under rest, he had consumed a small quantity of liquor in order to reduce the pain in the waist. It is stated that the statement of P.W.8 and P.W.9 is not looked into. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has been imposed with extreme penalty of dismissal which is not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is imposed with punishment of dismissal from service for the proved misconduct. The enquiry conducted is in accordance with the Rules, giving every opportunity to the petitioner. It has come on record and the petitioner has admitted in his written statement that he had consumed alcohol on 03.08.2009. The Central Reserve Police Force is a disciplined Central Police Force where highest degree of discipline is required, the petitioner has not maintained such discipline. He submits that the petitioner was found drunk during working hours on several occasions and the respondent had taken a lenient view on all such occasions. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
8. The scope of judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of he Constitution of India in respect of the Departmental Enquiry proceedings is very limited. In a departmental enquiry, the finding is based on preponderance of probability and not on strict rules of evidence. The respondents have conducted enquiry under the relevant Service Rules. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice nor he was denied with any opportunity to defend his case at any stage of the proceedings. It is also not a case of no evidence.
9. The substance of the charge made against the petitioner is that on 03.08.2009 he was not present on duty as Quarter Guard at 18.00 hours and that the petitioner has disobeyed the order assigning duty of Quarter Guard. Further, the charge also states that on 03.08.2009, he has again consumed liquor and he is in the habit of committing misconduct time and again. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner while replying to the charge memo in his reply dated 03.09.2009 he has stated as follows:
“…………………………… petitioner obtained permission came to his line, pain was so severe that the petitioner could not even bear it, as medicine like streptomycin was not available, took light drinks/boozed, pain came down, mind got healthy and happy, ……………………………”
10. The above statement of the petitioner would make it clear that on 03.08.2009 he had consumed liquor. The Disciplinary Authority subjected the petitioner to medical examination to know as to whether the petitioner has consumed liquor. The Doctor has also certified that the petitioner had consumed liquor. The Disciplinary Authority to substantiate its charge, examined witnesses who has supported the case of the Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses have stated that on 03.08.2009, the petitioner had consumed alcohol and remained absent for duty as Quarter Guard from 18.00 hours to 20.00 hours. The Enquiry Officer based on the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that on 03.08.2009, the petitioner has consumed very large quantity of alcohol and was absent for the Guard duty.
11. The contention of the petitioner that on 03.08.2009, when he was assigned with Quarter Guard duty, he was cutting the branches of stump of a tree and during the course of the said work, he got injured his waist. The injury is the reason for sending him to the line by the Hawaldar in-charge of the work. The said contention is not proved by producing evidence to that effect. But, the petitioner himself has admitted that in view of the pain on account of injury to the waist, he had consumed alcohol. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge memo. It has come on record in the Appellate Order that on four previous occasions, the petitioner was punished only for the reason that the petitioner had consumed liquor while on duty. The petitioner’s contention that on 03.08.2009 he had reported for duty and he had obtained rifle from the Guard room cannot be believed on the material on record. As he was drunk and he was not able to perform his duty as Quarter Guard, he was sent to line. There are sufficient material both oral and documentary to prove the charge against the petitioner.
12. On receipt of the Enquiry Report the petitioner was issued with second show cause notice on 12.07.2010, for which, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 27.07.2010. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the reply and on due application of its mind to the entire enquiry report, passed impugned order dated 06.08.2010 dismissing the petitioner from service. The Disciplinary Authority has noted that it is in total agreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and has found that the petitioner is incapable of being a disciplined member of the CRPF. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority by their reasoned order on consideration of each and every ground raised by the petitioner, rejected the appeal and revision petition. The Appellate Authority has noted that the petitioner is in the habit of consuming alcohol during his duty hours and for proved misconduct, punishment has been imposed.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS v/s PREMA RAM in Civil Appeal No.3152 of 2019 decided on 15.03.2019, in an identical situation has held as follows:
“The charge against the respondent was of a serious act of misconduct involving drunkenness and misbehavior with the public. The fact of intoxication was duly proved in the medical report. Having regard to the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member of the police service, we find no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 15 September 2014 was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The Division Bench has erred in allowing the Special Appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge did not suffer from any error of fact or law.”
14. The learned Single Judge by well reasoned order and on consideration of each of the contentions raised by the petitioner dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms