JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19th April, 2002, 14th May, 2002 and 31" October, 2002 passed by respondents by which the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner and affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the petition are; disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 by giving charge-sheet dated 18th March, 2001. Before submitting the charge-sheet a preliminary inquiry was also held which recommended for holding disciplinary inquiry under 1991 Rules. The preliminary enquiry report found the petitioner under influence of alcohol on 1st September, 2000 in the Police Lines. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner in his reply stated that petitioner came to know on 1.9.2000 that he has been reported to be absent in Order Room on which information he went to the Order Room for recall of marking him as absent. He further stated that Sub Inspector Radhey Shyam Singh to whom petitioner went became annoyed and to harm him took the petitioner to Beli Hospital for medical examination. The petitioner denied having consumed liquor on that date. The disciplinary inquiry was held in which witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. The Enquiry Officer also noted that petitioner has given in writing that he is not to lead any evidence, oral or documentary, in his defence. He prayed that he be sympathetically considered and proceedings be dropped. Before the Enquiry Officer Head Constable, Rameshwar Dubey and Sub Inspector Radhey Shyam Singh appeared and their statements were recorded. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Senior Superintendent of Police vide his order dated 19th April, 2002 found the charges proved against the petitioner and agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The explanation of the petitioner that he was suffering from cold and fever and has taken cough syrup which was smelling as alcohol was not accepted. The Senior Superintendent of Police reduced the petitioner on the minimum pay scale for three years against which order appeal and revision were filed which too have been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders, contended that the petitioner on 1st September, 2000 has not committed any misconduct. The petitioner was not on duty and was marked absent. He submitted that even if the petitioner has consumed alcohol on that day he being not on duty, no charge of misconduct can be levelled on him. He further submitted that petitioner could have been charged only when he had consumed the alcohol while on duty. He has referred to Regulation 373-A of Police Regulations which provides that members of the Police Force are strictly forbidden to consume intoxicants during the course of their duty or when they may reasonably be expected to be called upon to perform an official duty. He has also referred to Rule 4-A(b) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 which provides that government servant shall not be under the influence of any intoxicating drink or drug during the course of his duty and shall take due care that the performance of his duties is not affected in any way by the influence of drink or drug.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgments reported in 1983(2) S.L.R. 159; Rattan Lal Ex-Constable v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1983(2) S.L.R. 645; Sukhdev Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors. ; Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Ors. and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 2001(2) E.S.C. (Alld.) 719; Pravina Solanki v. State of U.P. and Ors.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. The charge, which was levelled against the petitioner, was that petitioner on 1st September, 2000 after consuming the alcohol was indulging in indecent behaviour in the Police Lines. During the inquiry the said allegation was proved by Sub Inspector Radhey Shyam Singh. The petitioner was also medically examined on the same day i.e., 1.9.2000 and the medical report was also relied during the inquiry which also confirmed that alcohol was smelling from the petitioner when he was medically examined. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner did not lead any oral or documentary evidence in his defence The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved to which finding the disciplinary authority has agreed. The explanation of the petitioner that he has taken cough syrup because he was suffering from cold and fever due to which he was smelling alcoholic was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority appellate authority and revisional authority have agreed with the order awarding punishment of reducing in minimum pay scale for three years. In a writ petition challenging the findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings, the judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is of very limited extent. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while reviewing the disciplinary proceedings shall not reappraise the evidence or interfere with the findings recorded by disciplinary authority on the charge. The findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings with regard to charge can be interfered with by this Court only when the said finding is based on no evidence or can be said to be perverse. Present is not a case in which findings recorded by disciplinary authority can be said to be based on no evidence or perverse.
8. The submission of petitioner's counsel that the petitioner even if he was drunken, not being on duty, cannot be charged for misconduct also needs consideration. The petitioner's case in his reply to the charge-sheet as well as reply to the show cause notice is that on 1.9.2000 a report was submitted in the Order Room that he was found absent. Petitioner has further stated in reply that he went in the Order Room to get the said order of absent recalled. In the writ petition, in paragraph 8, the petitioner has also come up with the same case. In paragraph-8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made following statement:--
8. That on 1.9.2000 the petitioner was informed by the reliable sources that he has shown absent in the general diary report of Police Lines, Allahabad, therefore, the petitioner went to the Office and met to Sub Inspector, Sri Radhey Shyam Singh and made a request to treat the petitioner in duty. The S.I. Radhey Shyam Singh became angry upon the petitioner saying that the smell of wine is coming from the mouth of the petitioner and sent the petitioner for medical examination.
9. From the reply of the petitioner as well as the above mentioned averments of paragraph-8 of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner was protesting marking of absence on 1,9.2000 and, in fact, he went to Sub Inspector, Radhey Shyam Singh requesting him to treat on duty. At that stage it is stated that Sub Inspector, Radhey Shyam Singh became angry and told the petitioner that he is smelling alcoholic and for which he was sent for medical examination. Neither in the reply to the charge-sheet nor in reply to the show cause notice or in the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he was on leave on 1.9.2000, rather petitioner's case in the writ petition is that, he wanted that his absence recorded on 1.9.2000 be recalled and he be treated on duty. The above material lead to inference that petitioner was on duty on 1,9.2000.
10. Even if for argument sake it is accepted that petitioner was not on duty on 1.9.2000 whether he committed any misconduct needs also to be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 4-A(b) of UP. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Rule 4-A of the UP. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1926 is extracted below:-
4- A. Consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs - A government servant shall--
(a) strictly abide by any law relating to intoxicating drinks or drugs in force in any area in which he may happen to be for the time being;
(b) not be under the influence of any intoxicating drink or drug during the course of his duty and shall also take due care that the performance of his duties at any time is not affected in any way by the influence of such drink or drug;
(c) refrain from consuming any intoxicating drink or drug in a public place;
(d) not appear in a public place in a state of intoxication;
(e) not use any intoxicating drink or drug to excess.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to paragraph 373- A of the Police Regulations which is extracted below:--
[373- A. Members of the Police Force are strictly forbidden to consume intoxicants during the course of their duty or when they may reasonably be expected to be called upon to perform an official duty. They are strictly warned that any violation or slightest disregard of this will be a cause for disciplinary action including removal of the officer concerned from service.]
12. Rule 4-A(d) of the Conduct Rules prohibits a Government servant to appear in a public place in a state of intoxication. Even if a Government servant is not on duty he is prohibited to appear in a public place in intoxication. In the present case the petitioner appeared under intoxication in the premises of Police Lines in front of Gadna Office. The appearance of the petitioner was in a public place. Even if the petitioner was not on duty on 1.9.2000 he could not be heard in saying that he did not commit any misconduct when he appeared in a public place in a state of intoxication. The reliance of the petitioner's counsel on Rule 4-A of the Conduct Rules does not help the petitioner in any manner in view of the specific provisions of Rule 4-A(d). The petitioner himself has filed Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is report dated 1.9.2000. In the said report petitioner's name is mentioned at Serial No. 27 and he is shown to be absent. Annexure- 2 to the writ petition reveals that the police officials mentioned in the said report numbering 27 were to appear in the Order- Room before the Circle Officer, Allahabad who was to pass order with regard to said officials. The said report was submitted at 15.00 hours on 1.9.2000. The petitioner who was to appear in the Order-Room on 1.9.2000 before the Circle Officer clearly indicate that petitioner was to appear before his superior office with regard to official business. Regulation 373-A is also attracted in the present case because on 1.9.2000 the petitioner was to appear before the Circle Officer before whom he failed to appear and was marked as absent. Thus even if he was not on duty on the said date he was reasonably expected to call upon to perform official duty on that date and Regulation 373-A clearly forbids such official to consume intoxicants. Further on 1.9.2000 when the petitioner was found in intoxicated stage R.I.-I, Rajeshwar Singh, directed the Sub Inspector Radhey Shyam and Constable Bigular Rampal Verma to take the petitioner for medical examination to Beli Hospital and it was, entered in the report that at 19.05 hours he was taken to Beli Hospital from where he returned at 20.00 hours. The petitioner was medically examined on the same day and the doctor has reported presence of smell of alcohol.
13. In above view, the submission of the petitioner that petitioner cannot be charged for having consumed liquor since he was not on duty on 1.9.2000 cannot be accepted. The petitioner has committed misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings were rightly drawn and the Enquiry Officer has found the charges proved against the petitioner.
14. The judgments relied by counsel for the petitioner of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rattan Lal's case (supra) and Sukhdev Singh's case (supra) were cases in which it was held that constable was not in influence of liquor while on duty. That cases were on their own facts and in the present case as observed above the petitioner cannot be treated to not on duty on that date and further there was indecent behaviour in public place. The said two cases are distinguishable. Another case relied by counsel for the petitioner is Parvina Solanki's case (supra). The said case was a case of lady constable whose residence was raided at 11.30 P.M. and it was found with a male constable at her residence. This Court took the view that the constable was not on duty at the relevant time and she could not have been charged for any misconduct. The Court held that the petitioner of that case was at her residence late in the night and there was no allegation that she was on duty at that time. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the Court also observed that petitioner was not doing act in public place but at her residence. In the present case the allegation of the petitioner of being under intoxication was at public place and inquiry was rightly held against the petitioner. Another case relied by counsel for the petitioner is Ram Kishan's case (supra). The said case was a case in which constable was dismissed on the charge of abusing his superior and the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of charge. In facts of that case the Apex Court held that appropriate punishment would be stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. In the present case the petitioner has not been dismissed from service. He has been reduced to minimum scale for three years. The punishment awarded to he petitioner in the present case cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge. The judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kishan's case (supra) does not help the petitioner in the present case.
15. None of the submissions raised by the petitioner has any substance.
16. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.