Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 516 (UTT)

Jai Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-10-30

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. K.S. Bora, Advocate present for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel, present for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 5. 3. The petitioner is a Constable in Police Armed Constabulary (from hereinafter referred to as “PAC”), after facing the disciplinary inquiry, his services have been terminated. His appeal and revision against the said order have also been dismissed by the authority concerned. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court. 4. On 02.02.2009, the petitioner was attached to the PAC Battalion at Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar and was sent for duties at Dehradun. Later that day he was found to unconscious and laying on a railway platform while in his uniform. It was found that he was under intoxication and further evidence proved that he was not only in a totally inebriated state but had even urinated in his uniform, being in a very high state of inebriation. Thereafter a disciplinary proceeding was instituted, the charge sheet was given to him. In inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commandant, the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be true. It was proved that he was found absent from duty and found unconscious under the influence of liquor and had even urinated in his uniform while on duty. Consequently his services were terminated by the authority concerned. 5. As already stated above his statutory appeal has already been dismissed. He has now come before this Court in the present writ petition. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bora that there are two anomalies in the entire proceedings. The first anomaly is that the inquiry officer and the appointing authority both have considered the charge of intoxication during the duty to be proved, whereas the medical evidence is inconclusive. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there is no medical test done on the petitioner, even though it is admitted on record that when the petitioner was found in an inebriated state on duty, he was taken to the Doon Hospital at Dehradun where he was examined by the Doctor but no pathological or other examination was conducted upon the petitioner. Hence it is argued that it is inconclusive to say that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor while on duty. Hence it is argued that it is inconclusive to say that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor while on duty. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner would be that inquiry officer as well as appointing authority and the other authorities have also considered the past service record of the petitioner where he has been given two major penalties and on other occasion minor penalties, which have also been considered while imposing the present penalty against the petitioner, which is again wrong. 6. It is undoubtedly true that there is no pathological examination such as the examination of petitioner’s blood or urine which would have proved that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. All the same, the evidence given by the Doctor before the inquiry officer, clearly suggests that when he examined the petitioner on 02.02.2009, the petitioner was found under the influence of liquor. He was not only smelling of liquor, but he was totally in an inebriated state. Apart from the evidence of the Doctor who is an independent witness, there are other witnesses also who have conclusively proved, beyond any doubt, that the petitioner was under influence of liquor on that day. For example, out of many witnesses, who were examined by the inquiry officer there is one P.W-1 Police Constable Shailendra Manral who was with 46 PAC at Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. He has clearly stated that he was the Platoon Commander of the said PAC. He found petitioner missing from the camp on 02.02.2009. He sent a team in order to search the constable, but in vain. Later in the afternoon he was informed that the said Constable was found in an intoxicated state at Railway Station Dehradun and was being questioned at Police Station GRP Dehradun. On this information the said Officer along with another Constable, namely, Vijay Chand reached the GRP Station and found that the petitioner was there in an intoxicated state and it was also visible that he had urinated in his Police Uniform. He was then taken to Doon Hospital for medical examination. 7. The defence of the petitioner regarding the intoxication was that he had actually taken an “overdose” of some homeopathic medicine and this was the reason that he was smelling of alcohol. He was then taken to Doon Hospital for medical examination. 7. The defence of the petitioner regarding the intoxication was that he had actually taken an “overdose” of some homeopathic medicine and this was the reason that he was smelling of alcohol. Be that as it may, the fact remains that evidence to this effect of the Doctor who is an independent witness clearly established that the petitioner was in an inebriated state. Moreover, in the departmental inquiry charges are established on a preponderance of probabilities unlike in a criminal trial where prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. This fact of petitioner’s being in an inebriated state is further corroborated by another Constable, namely, Ajay Kumar at GRP Station Dehradun. In his statement before the inquiry officer he has stated that between 3 PM to 4 PM when he was on his beat at the Railway Station. He found the present petitioner in a Police uniform laying on the floor near a bench and was surrounded by bystanders. He was smelling of liquor and had urinated in his Police uniform. He was thereafter taken to the Police Thana and then sent for medical examination. This fact has been corroborated by other witnesses as well. 9. His superior officers have also stated that the past record of the petitioner also does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, in his service of last 18 years or so, he has been given major penalties twice, minor penalties, adverse entries is about eighteen times etc. Many of these complaints were regarding the petitioner being under influence of alcohol, while on duty. 10. Taking all these aspects into consideration, even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the past service record of the petitioner was not liable to be seen for establishing all the charges yet as far as the quantum of punishment, there is no anomaly if his past service is also taken into consideration. 11. Be that as it may, the present charges on which the inquiry proceeded against the petitioner has been clearly established. 11. Be that as it may, the present charges on which the inquiry proceeded against the petitioner has been clearly established. The contention of the petitioner that there is no conclusive evidence regarding intoxication against him is not well founded, though there has been no pathological examination of blood and urine, yet there is a Doctor’s report and statement to this effect, which clearly shows that the petitioner was examined by him, who was in an intoxicated and totally inebriated state. This fact has been further established by the GRP Constables and PAC Constables as well. The Doctor who examined the petitioner as well as the two Constables who are independent witnesses and in any case, no motive has been assigned to them. 12. In view of the above discussion no interference is liable to be made and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.