- (1.) When certain misconduct came to the notice of the competent authority, a preliminary enquiry was ordered to ascertain as to whether there was any need to initiate disciplinary proceeding or not. After preliminary enquiry and in the light of the preliminary enquiry report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent on the charge that while he was on duty he has consumed liquor and abused another constable when he was on duty. Thereafter, a regular enquiry was held and on the basis of the material placed in the enquiry, the enquiry officer having recorded a finding that the charge levelled against the respondent was proved, made the following recommendations: "Task Force Battalion is armed with sophisticated weapons and a minor diversion or negligence can prove fatal. Therefore it is dangerous if an employee is on duty while in inebriated state. Being in an intoxicated state while reporting on duty and showing indiscipline is not something appreciated or desired in Task Force or PAC, a disciplinary force. Therefore it is recommended that this constable Harendra Kumar 56306 may be dismissed from service under the provision of R. 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991."
(2.) Looking to the report and recommendations of the enquiry officer and on consideration, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal of the respondent from service. Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the said order, the respondent approached the State Public Services Tribunal challenging it raising three contentions: 1. Prejudice was caused to him during the enquiry. 2. There has been non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of dismissal. 3. The imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the charges held proved against him.
(3.) The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions on their relative merits held that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent in the enquiry, the punishment imposed on the respondent was not disproportionate to the charge held proved. However, the Tribunal found fault with the order of dismissal on the ground that the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind and merely passed the order on the basis of the recommendations made by the enquiry officer. In that view, the Tribunal felt that the order of dismissal was vitiated and accordingly allowed the application and set aside the order of dismissal, however, gave liberty to the appellants to pass fresh order of punishment in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing, if so desired. The appellants aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging its correctness and validity. The High Court unfortunately dismissed the writ petition without even broadly noticing the contentions and/or the questions of law raised before it. The order passed by the High Court in the writ petition reads thus: "Heard counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel could not assail the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed." Hence this appeal.;