- (1.) The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 26.8.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that one act may not constitute gravest act of misconduct within Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) [for brevity, 'the Rules']. Keeping in view more than 27 years of service rendered by the writ petitioner-respondent, learned Single Judge has held that the Punishing Authority while inflicting the punishment of dismissal has failed to apply its mind to the fact that the writ petitionerrespondent has rendered long years of service and his pension would be forfeited by the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge also recorded a categorical finding that the Enquiry Officer or the Punishing Authority did not record any finding that the misconduct of the writ petitioner-respondent was of such a nature which would prove incorrigibility and complete unfitness for the police service. The learned Single Judge also found that merely because the writ petitioner-respondent consumed liquor was also not sufficient to inflict the extreme punishment of dismissal particularly when no finding has been recorded that he had consumed liquor while on duty. Further quoting Rule 18.5(7) of the Rules, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold as under:- " As per contention of the learned counsel that as per medical report, the petitioner had consumed liquor as smell of alcohol was coming from his mouth. Consumption of alcohol in itself cannot be considered an act of misconduct under the Service Rules merely because as an employee is found under the influence of liquor, without anything more cannot be justified to award punishment of dismissal. The conduct of the petitioner is also clear from the fact that a commendation certificate has been awarded to the petitioner which was given to him even after passing of the order. Keeping in view the total length of service and past service for which a commendation certificate was issued and also to the fact that nothing has been brought on record with regard to consumption of liquor or that the petitioner has done something or his act has affected the working of other employees in any manner. It has also not been proved on record that at a particular point of time, the petitioner was on his duty. The punishment of dismissal is on the excessive side as he served the department for more than 27 years and by passing the dismissal order not only his right to pension has been deprived but he has been debarred from joining any other service which would affect not only the petitioner but dependent members of family also and ultimately the children would be the sufferer."
(2.) Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is no rule of law that single act of indiscipline like consuming liquor while on duty would not constitute a gravest act of misconduct. According to the learned counsel such a grave misconduct could attract the extreme punishment of dismissal. Mr. Sehgal has maintained that the past record of the writ petitionerrespondent as reflected in the order dated 17.11.1992 (P-3), would also show that he was awarded punishment of censure in 1990 for having been found under the influence of liquor when he was posted as MLA Guard at Shahbad. Another punishment of censure was again inflicted in 1992 for missing uniform articles and identity card while he was posted at Police Station, Shahbad. He also suffered another punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect in 1992 for unauthorised absence from duty from standing guard duty at the residence of Ex-Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha at Kurukshetra. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Punishing Authority reached the conclusion that on account of continuous misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police force stood proved.
(3.) A notice dated 16.10.1992 was issued to him reflecting his punishments inflicted in the past. He submitted his reply and personal hearing was also afforded to him.;