Dr.Satish Chandra,J. - (1.) 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.02.1996 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal by which the claim petition preferred by the petitioner, against the dismissal order dated 07.02.1991 and the appellate order dated 14/16.12.1991 was dismissed and the order dated 30.04.1997 by which the review petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Public Services Tribunal has filed the instant writ petition. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows: The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the Civil Police on 20.08.1986. By the order dated 21.08.1990, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the charge that on 17.08.1990 at about 9.00 P.M. the petitioner went to the shop of Sri Rakesh Kumar, son of Pyare Lal Gupta situated at Kasba Bilsi, District Badaun; ate half of the Laddoo and threw the remaining half in the Laddoo tray and abused Sri Rakesh Kumar and beat Sri Sudhir Kumar when they resisted against the act done by the petitioner. A complaint was lodged by Sri Rakesh Kumar on 17.08.1990 at about 9.30 P.M. at P.S.Bilsi which was registered as NCR No.382 of 1990. A charge sheet dated 20.09.1990 was served upon the petitioner which was suitably replied by the petitioner on 26.09.1990. The Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against the petitioner and submitted the report. A show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner which was suitably replied by the petitioner on 13.12.1990. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned dismissal order on 07.02.1991. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, Bareilly by the order dated 14/16.12.1991. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 07.02.1991 and the appellate order dated 14/16.12.1991, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow which was contested by the opposite parties by filing a written statement. The Tribunal after considering the material on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties by the impugned judgement and order dated 19.02.1996 dismissed the claim petition preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the State Public Services Tribunal which too was dismissed being barred by time by the order dated 30.04.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Public Services Tribunal without considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner. He further submits that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the petitioner must have been under the influence of liquor at the time of incident is perverse and illegal as there was no charge to that effect in the charge sheet and the Tribunal has also dismissed the claim petition under the impression that the petitioner was in a drunken state when the incident had taken place on 17.08.1990. He further submits that the only charge against the petitioner was that he had taken a Laddoo from the shop of Sri Rakesh Kumar and after eating half of the Laddoo threw the remaining in the Laddoo tray although the said allegation was denied by the petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet. He further submits that on 17.08.1990 there was a quarrel between Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Rakesh Kumar and Sudhir Kumar and when the petitioner, who was on duty, tried to disperse the crowd, a false N.C.R. was lodged by Sri Rakesh Kumar, owner of the shop, against the petitioner. He further submits that a show cause notice dated 20.11.1990 was issued to the petitioner for reduction of pay-scale for one year but the final order of dismissal from service was passed in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. He further submits that the imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is not proportionate to the gravity of the charge and as such the impugned dismissal order deserves to be quashed.
(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.1996 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal. He further submits that the order of dismissal was passed after holding enquiry into the matter and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority. He further submits that a second show cause notice dated 04.12.1990 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Badaun to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. He further submits that the petitioner was a member of the disciplined force and the misconduct in such cases is to be dealt with by iron hands. THE learned Standing counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and another reported in (2007) 9 SCC 15. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.;