Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 176 (UTT)

Ram Kishore Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

2008-04-22

B.LAL, K.R.BHATI

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sri K.R. Bhati. Vice Chairman (A) : 1. This claim petition has been filed by Sri Ram Kishore S/o Sh. Roop Ram Singh against the State of Uttarakhand & others. U/S 4 of the Public Services Tribunal Act 1976, seeking relief to set aside the dismissal order dated 11.11.2000, rejection of appeal dated 7.5.2001 and resultant reinstatement in service w.e.f. 11.11.2000 along with any other order. 2. The facts stated in this claim petition are that the petitioner was dismissed from service by Respondent No.3 after disciplinary enquiry against him. The petitioner has been rendering satisfactory service to the department. He was on guard duty at the residence of District Judge, Pauri Garhwal on 27.6.2000 from 1800 hrs. to 2100 hrs. when during the inspection by A.S.I. Suresh Pal and others, they found him in the state of intoxication at 1930 hrs. A suspension order was served on 28.6.2000 on charge of intoxication by Respondent No.3. Sri Ram Kumar Sharma, A.S.I. Thana Kotwali, Pauri submitted the enquiry report on 24.7.2000 to Respondent No.3 recommending departmental proceedings under rule 14(1) of The UP Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rule 1991 and disciplinary enquiry was set up against him thereafter. Sri Hukum Singh Dy. S.P. was appointed enquiry officer who called for his explanation on charge sheet dated 18.8.2000. The statement of witnesses during the enquiry repeat the same story and neither any public witnesses nor Constable Hari Ram who replaced the petitioner for guard duty were examined. His reply to the charge sheet, 19.9.2000 has not been incorporated in the enquiry report. The enquiry report recommended for major punishment. A show cause notice was issued on 30.10.2000 and the petitioner was dismissed vide Annexure-1. An appeal was filed before the I.G. Pciuri Garhwal on 15.12.2000 which was rejected vide order dated 7.5./11.5.2001. The direction contained in the writ petition by the petitioner on 7.8.2001 to decide the appeal within three months was not decided until a reminder was sent. However, on notice for contempt of Court, the appeal was decided on 7.5.2001 which is highly improbable. It shows the perverse mind of the respondents in disregard to the principles of natural justice. The dismissal on single ground of intoxication is very harsh and illegal. The petitioner was suffering from stomach ache and had taken some medicine having alcoholic contents. However, on notice for contempt of Court, the appeal was decided on 7.5.2001 which is highly improbable. It shows the perverse mind of the respondents in disregard to the principles of natural justice. The dismissal on single ground of intoxication is very harsh and illegal. The petitioner was suffering from stomach ache and had taken some medicine having alcoholic contents. The duty timing of the petitioner and the time of intoxicating state of petitioner is contradictory in the statement of Constable Hari Ram. The enquiry conducted by A.S.I. is not according to rules and the petitioner has been given disproportionate punishment. 3. The respondents have filed the written statements and have stated that -the orders against the petitioner have been passed within the framework of rules by the competent authorities. He was found in the state of intoxication by Inspecting Officer Sri Suresh Pal while - on duty at the residence of District Judge on 27.6.2000. The petitioner was taken to the district hospital Pauri for medical examination in which he was found under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the competent authority after due preliminary enquiry and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 18.8.2000 along with copy of preliminary enquiry report. The petitioner was given due opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses during the enquiry for his defence. On the basis of the report, a show cause notice was issued on 30.10.2000 along with the conclusions of the enquiry. But the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time and hence the impugned order dated 11.11.2000 was issued. Neither procedural infirmity nor violation of rules has been committed by the respondents. As per the rulings, in various cases cited in the W.S., the respondents state that there is no cause of interference in the impugned orders. The medical examination confirmed the consumption of alcohol. Admitting the preliminary enquiry, respondents state that preliminary enquiry is covered by the rules in force. The enquiry was conducted by the Dy. S.P. Pauri Garhwal. The petitioner did not submit his explanation despite due information to him. The petitioner did not cross-examine the witnesses on his own, and the statement of Constable Hari Ram was not warranted. The reply dated 28.9.2000 to charge sheet was considered by the enquiry officer. The enquiry was conducted by the Dy. S.P. Pauri Garhwal. The petitioner did not submit his explanation despite due information to him. The petitioner did not cross-examine the witnesses on his own, and the statement of Constable Hari Ram was not warranted. The reply dated 28.9.2000 to charge sheet was considered by the enquiry officer. The petitioner vide his letter dated 11.10.2000 informed that he does not' intend to produce any witness except what he has stated in his statement. The petitioner was given show cause notice on 30.10.2000, but he chose not to submit any explanation. The disposal of appeal dated 7.5.2001 was intimated through S.P. Muzaffar Nagar on 17.6.2001. The entire proceedings have been conducted as per the rules and no infirmity has been committed by the respondents. The punishment is based on evidence against the petitioner. The interpretation of said Rules of 1991 by the petitioner is nothing but the convenient interpretation and is not admissible. The punishing authority has applied his mind while issuing the show cause notice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution has not been violated by the respondents. The revision has not been preferred by the petitioner for which he was entitled and the petition therefore is not maintainable. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief and petition deserves to be rejected with cost. 4. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated the contention of the claim petition and states that petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Subsequently the petitioner also filed amendment application praying that revisional order dated 31.7.2007 may be quashed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shashank Pandey and Sri Umesh Dhaundiyal, learned Assistant Presenting Officer for the respondents. 7. In the entire conduct of enquiry, repeated statement has been made by the respondents that the enquiry has been conducted as per the due process• of law. The recommendation of enquiry officer for proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 14(1) of the Niymawali of 1991 is just and proper Further, the major punishment proceedings have been drawn by issuance of charge sheet. However, reading of the charge sheet suggests that he was not given the copy of memo of witnesses who were supposed to prove imputation/allegation against him. However, reading of the charge sheet suggests that he was not given the copy of memo of witnesses who were supposed to prove imputation/allegation against him. Though the petitioner has not made any specific request to supply any document which were relied upon by the respondent as per the charge sheet dated 18.8.2000, but it remains she duty of the superior authorities to supply the entire set of documentation relied upon against the petitioner. This is a clear violation of procedure laid down for the major penalty proceedings. If the petitioner has failed to seek the copies the reason should be seen in the application made by the petitioner in which the request for withdrawing the charge sheet was made on 28.9.2000. This has remained unanswered by the respondents. Another letter dated 11.10.2000 by the petitioner is in continuation of his letter dated 28.9.2000. If the petitioner was entitled to contest the enquiry, he should have been given the copies of the documents relied upon. No mention has been made in the charge sheet as to what all documents are being supplied with the charge sheet. Obviously, mere reference of the witnesses against him is not sufficient. The reply to his letter dated 28.9.2000 was not given, but the respondents have passed the burden of not offering any evidence in his favour on the letter by the petitioner dated 11.10.2000. This is plainly an unfair practice adopted by the respondents and shows that they were bent upon punishing the petitioner with a major penalty. Further, the bad relations with Sri Suresh Pal who inspected the Guard duty, has not been controverted by the respondents. For the sake of record alone, a reference should have been made by the respondents that the bias of Sri Suresh Pal and other superior officers did not exist at all. 8. In so far as the medical examination is concerned, it was confined to a visit to the hospital and subsequent examination of the petitioner. But the medical report in absence of blood and urine test is incomplete as laid down in the rulings made in the case State of Assam Vs. Mohan Chandra Kalita, AIR 1972 SC 2535 (2538) and State of UP Vs. Raj Kishroe AIR 1987 SC 1642. But the medical report in absence of blood and urine test is incomplete as laid down in the rulings made in the case State of Assam Vs. Mohan Chandra Kalita, AIR 1972 SC 2535 (2538) and State of UP Vs. Raj Kishroe AIR 1987 SC 1642. The medical report in the absence of blood test and urine test is not conclusive to prove that the petitioner was under the state of intoxication. The medical officer has also not been called to prove the medical report in which petitioner was alleged to be found in the state of intoxication. Such uncorroborated document is totally insufficient to prove the charge of intoxication. Reading of such documentation without corroboration is not permissible under the rules and law. To that extent, the infirmity has been committed in the departmental proceedings and the petitioner stands denied the protection of natural justice. The impugned order states that the petitioner has not given any explanation in his defence. But this speaks against the reply of the petitioner dated 19.9.2000/ 28.9.2000 in which the petitioner has specifically stated that opportunity for cross-examination and for personal hearing. This conduct of the respondents is violative of the procedure laid down for the departmental proceedings. 9. Based on the discussion above, it is clear that the bias was operating against the petitioner and the most important witness i.e. the doctor has also been not called to prove his report. As stated earlier, such unproved report can• not be read against the petitioner and he therefore stands to get the benefit of infirmity committed in the departmental enquiry by the respondents. ORDER In the light of the discussion above, it is clear that the impugned orders suffer from the infirmity and deserve to be set aside. The claim petition therefore is allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside the petitioner shall be reinstated in service on receipt of this order. No order to the cost.