DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER Vs. RAVINDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
Ravindra Singh And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) There has been 57 days delay in preferring the Appeal. An Application (CLMA No. 11579 of 2013) for condonation of delay has been filed. That is not being objected. We have considered the averments made in the Application and being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons furnished for the delay, allow the Application.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits.
(3.) On 13th September, 1991, respondent no. 1, a constable in the Police Department of the State, was found smelling of liquor in the morning parade. Because of that, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 26th August, 1993 recommending punishment of stoppage of two increments. The superior Authority, to whom the recommendation was made, issued another notice, whereby respondent no. 1 was called upon to give reply to the charge of smelling of liquor. This charge was decided on 31st October, 1993 when the services of respondent no. 1 were terminated. The charge was decided on the basis of two evidence; one was the letter of respondent no. 1, in which he had indicated that he had consumed liquor on the previous night; the other was the report of the Doctor, which report was prepared immediately after respondent no. 1 was found smelling of liquor. In the report, the Doctor indicated that respondent no. 1 is not under intoxication, but he smells of liquor. Having had lost in the Appeal, respondent no. 1 went before the Public Services Tribunal and lost there. He, then, approached this Court. Until then, it was the specific case of the appellants that the case was covered by Rule 4-A of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. This Court, having had noticed Rule 4-A of the said Rules, felt that it has not come on record that the conduct of respondent no. 1, complained of, suggests violation of the said Rule. This Court, accordingly, remitted back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to decide, whether the materials on record suggest violation of the said Rule by respondent no. 1. Purporting to discharge its obligation under the said order of this Court, appellants totally abrogated their obligation under the order of this Court and purported to hold out that under Regulation 373-A, since members of the Police Force are strictly forbidden to consume intoxicants during the course of their duty or when they may reasonably be expected to be called upon to perform an official duty, respondent no. 1 was guilty and, accordingly, reaffirmed the termination order as was passed on 31st October, 1993. This latter order dated 10th November, 2010 as well as the previous order dated 31st October, 1993 came to be challenged in a writ petition filed by respondent no. 1, which has been allowed by the judgment and order under Appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.