JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was a constable. He was dismissed from service on 24.8.1993. His appeal was dismissed on 27.2.1994. Both these orders have been challenged for being arbitrary and contrary to law.
2. The State has not filed any counter-affidavit. Twice time was granted, once in 1994 and then on the request of standing counsel by stop order dated 22.8.1997. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the petition be disposed of finally at the admission stage. His request was accepted and the petition is disposed of finally after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R. K. Ojha and Shri V. K. Rai brief-holder for the State.
3. The charges framed against the petitioner were spoiling image of police department by taking liquor on 11.11.1992 at 5.15 p.m. along with four others at the residence of Himmat Singh and beating of student by chappal by some one of the drunken persons. A charge of dereliction of duty between 17,8.1992 to 10.10.1992 was also framed. But the department did not pursue the latter charge during inquiry.
4. The proceedings were held ex parte. Even though it is challenged for being contrary to natural justice but ft is not necessary to examine it as the order cannot be sustained on merits.
5. Before adverting to it. an objection of the learned counsel for State may be disposed of. It was urged that whether the petitioner consumed liquor is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered in writ Jurisdiction. As a broad proposition of law. the argument may be correct. But it has been held by the Apex Court that a finding recorded by disciplinary authority without any material on record is not a finding of fact which can prevent this Court from exercising Its extraordinary jurisdiction.
6. I have gone through the impugned order and the Inquiry report in detail. I do not find any evidence on record to prove that the petitioner had consumed liquor. His identity was not established. No one knew him. It has been attempted to be established by describing his features, colour and height.
7. It was admitted before the inquiry officer that the petitioner was not got medically examined. The explanation of the Pithaseen Adhikari that it could not be done as the report was received at police station latter is not convincing as Himmat Singh stated before the inquiry officer that he was called from his shop on 11.11.1992 by the police inspector and when he reached at his residence, it was 6.00 p.m. The incident was of 5.15 p.m. It is thus obvious that the inspector had come on the Information which must have been conveyed. To say, therefore, that the report reached later is not correct. Himmat Singh who came from his shop on being called by the inspector did not state that he was present at his house at 5.15 p.m. He did not disclose the source from which he came to know that the petitioner had taken liquor.
8. The inquiry officer has held Dharmendra Kumar who is said to have been beaten stated that he did not recognise the petitioner nor he was filing any report. He was not interested in pursuing the matter. The inquiry officer held that the petitioner was not medically examined. The best evidence was thus not produced. There is no explanation why medical examination of any other person who is said to have taken liquor along with petitioner was not got done. There is thus, no direct or indirect evidence of petitioner having consumed liquor. The disciplinary authority could not have come to this conclusion on hearsay evidence. There is no allegation that the petitioner had beaten Dharmendra Kumar. Even this much is not alleged or proved that it was at the instigation of the petitioner that someone beat him. In absence of any material that the petitioner was drunk or the student was beaten at his instigation, the inference drawn by the disciplinary authority that the Image of the department was lowered cannot be maintained.
9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The dismissal order dated 24.8.1993 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and appellate order dated 27.2.1994 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.