Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 598 (UTT)

Surendra Kumar Trivedi v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-12-18

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Delay Condonation Application No. 5737 of 2014 Restoration Application No. 308 of 2014 Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the Delay Condonation application. This case was dismissed for non prosecution on 29.06.2012. Now, a belated application for recalling the order has been moved by the applicant/petitioner with a prayer to restore the matter to its original number. On the ground urged in the delay condonation application as well as in the interest of justice the delay condonation application is allowed. Also heard on the restoration application. In the interest of justice, the order dated 29.06.2012 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. WPSS No. 836 of 2008 The petitioner before this Court was a Constable in Uttarakhand Civil Police. While he was on duty at Udham Singh Nagar on 12.07.2000, he was asked to proceed to Kashipur but he did not proceed to join his duties at Kashipur. On 25.07.2000 he was found misbehaving with general public when he was in an inebriated state under influence of liquor. Thereafter a show cause notice was given to him on 19.07.2001 by the authority concerned. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was given to him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. All the charges against the petitioner were established. The charge against the petitioner is that under the influence of liquor at the roadways bus stand at Rudrapur he was misbehaving with the general public. He was apprehended on 25.07.2000 and on the same day he was medically examined at J.L.N. Hospital which is situated at Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. From the perusal of the doctor report, which is a part of enquiry report, it is revealed that the petitioner has been examined by the Medical Officer. The medical examination report reads as under:- “Behaviour of the person examined is not cooperative, irregular slurring speech. Speak loudly, abusing continuously. Regarding blood pressure, it has been stated it could not be recorded due to non cooperation of the patient. The doctor further states that respiration is regular but foul alcohol smell is coming out from the mouth. Face is red. The urine sample cannot be collected due to non cooperation of the patient. The person examined has consumed alcohol in large quantity but not intoxicated.” Thereafter the petitioner was given regular opportunity to be present in the departmental proceeding. The doctor further states that respiration is regular but foul alcohol smell is coming out from the mouth. Face is red. The urine sample cannot be collected due to non cooperation of the patient. The person examined has consumed alcohol in large quantity but not intoxicated.” Thereafter the petitioner was given regular opportunity to be present in the departmental proceeding. The inquiry proceeded against him. The Inquiry Officer has recorded all the findings against the petitioner and thereafter, he was dismissed from service. Against the said dismissal order the petitioner filed an appeal before the authority concerned, which has also been rejected. The charges against the petitioner which is primarily that he did not report at the place of his duty where he was sent and secondly he was found in an inebriated state and he was misbehaving with the general public, which were proved against the petitioner. An argument has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing conclusive can be said regarding the fact that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor, as is the case before the departmental proceeding. It has been argued that the petitioner was unwell and therefore, he had taken medicine the contents of which were in the form of alcohol and for this reason the foul smell of liquor was detected. However, it cannot be said that the petitioner was under influence of liquor. On the contrary the medical examination report of the petitioner which was conducted by the Doctor of a Government Hospital at 09:50 p.m. on the same day speaks to the contrary of the petitioner. The doctor, who is independent person and not biased against him, has categorically stated which has already referred above. It is again in his categorical observation that the petitioner did not even cooperate in the examination, so much so that blood pressure could not have been examined but the doctor came to the conclusion that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. These findings and the charges being established against the petitioner. The dismissal of the petitioner cannot be a punishment which can be called excessive or disproportionate to the charges. This Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.