- (1.) The petitioner was working in the Haryana Police Force as a Head Constable. He was sent for refresher course at Kala Teetar when the incident in question took place. He was called for special roll call at 10.30 p.m. on 26.1.1985. It is alleged that he was found under the influence of liquor and uttered flighty words against the officers. He was found to have consumed alcohol. Enquiry was held against him and the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 6.6.1985 i.e. from the date of passing of order Annexure P/3 was imposed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not on duty at the time when the incident took place. He also argued that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges alleged against him.
(3.) So far as the charge of being found under the influence of liquor is concerned, it is not shown that the petitioner had consumed liquor in the barrack or in the official premises. The petitioner was on training and it is nobody's case that he was on actual duty when the roll call was made. It was a special roll call. It is also nobody's case that the petitioner was confined only to the barrack and could not go out. Therefore, the fact that he could have consumed liquor outside also cannot be ruled out.;