- (1.) The petitioner has impugned the order of the disciplinary authority - the Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar dated September 12, 1991, dismissing him from service and the appellate order dated September 8, 1992 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt. affirming the order of the disciplinary authority, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are that on April 17, 1989, the petitioner was posted at Police Station, Naraingarh. He had consumed liquor and refused to stand on gate duty. He was got medically examined and the doctor opined that he had taken alcohol. A regular departmental enquiry was ordered against him. A summary of allegation alongwith list of prosecution witnesses and other documents relied upon by the Department was served upon him by the Enquiry Officer on May 26, 1989. The petitioner did not admit the allegations and claimed a regular departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of departmental witnesses and gave opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. Thereafter, the petitioner abstained from appearing before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer served numerous notices on the petitioner to appear before him, but he refused to do so. The Enquiry Officer closed the defence evidence and submitted his report dated October 10, 1989 holding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. On November 3, 1989, the petitioner was transferred to Yamunanagar on the creation of Yamunanagar. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner stating that he proposed to inflict a penalty of dismissal from service. He was transferred and Shri H.S. Ahlawat, I.P.S., took over charge as Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar. After perusing the records, he issued a fresh show-cause notice proposing the above penalty, but no reply thereto was filed by the petitioner. Before taking any decision in the matter, Shri H.S. Ahlawat, I.P.S., was also transferred and Shri K.K. Mishra, IPS, took over the charge as Superintendent of Police at Yamunanagar. He issued a fresh show-cause notice proposing the penalty of dismissal from Police force on August 23, 1991, which was served upon the petitioner on August 25, 1991, but the petitioner did not submit any reply to that show-cause notice. The disciplinary authority, agreeing with the enquiry report, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner, aggrieved against the order of dismissal, challenged the same in appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt. The appellate authority, after perusing the evidence, came to the following conclusion - "The Medical Officer has clearly deposed that the appellant had consumed liquor. It is also a significant fact that the appellant refused to give sample of his blood and urine. This clearly proves his guilt. The contention made by the appellant that he had not committed the gravest act of misconduct does not hold water. A Police Officer who is armed with weapon and is performing sensitive duties is duty bound to behave in a highly responsible manner. Without proper discipline, an armed force cannot be handled effectively and a police official who is drunk on duty can play havoc. The gravity of misconduct is to be judged in the light of sensitivity of the task to be performed. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant committed a gravest act of misconduct." The petitioner did not challenge the order of the appellate authority in revision.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised following submissions :- i) The disciplinary authority did not take into consideration the provisions of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana (for short, the 'Police Rules). It did not consider the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits keeping in view his length of service, and ii) The Enquiry Officer cross-examined the petitioner and the enquiry is rendered invalid. Rule 16.2 (1) of the Police Rules reads thus - Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension." Rule 16.2(1) consists of the two parts. The first part is referable to gravest acts of misconduct for which a penalty of dismissal from service can be awarded. The second part of the rule connotes the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service and his claim for pension should be taken into account in an appropriate case. This rule came up for interpretation before the apex Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable, 1992 AIR(SC) 2188, where it was observed thus :- "Rule 16.2(1) consists of two parts. The first part is referable to gravest acts of misconduct which entails awarding an order of dismissal. Undoubtedly, there is distinction between gravest misconduct and grave misconduct. Before awarding an order of dismissal it shall be mandatory that dismissal order should be made only when there are gravest acts of misconduct, that too when it impinges the pensionary rights of the delinquent after putting long length of service. As stated the first part relates to gravest acts of misconduct. Under General Clauses Act singular includes plural, act includes acts. The contention that there must be plurality of acts of misconduct to award dismissal is fastidious. The word "acts" would include singular "act" as well. It is not the repetition of the acts complained of but its quality, insidious effect and gravity of situation that ensues from the offending 'act'. The colour of the gravest act must be gathered from the surrounding or attending circumstances. Take for instance the delinquent that put in 29 years of continuous length of service and had unblemished record, in 30th year he commits defalcation of public money or fabricates false records to conceal misappropriation. He only committed once. Does it mean that he should not be inflicted with the punishment of dismissal but be allowed to continue in service for that year to enable him to get his full pension. The answer is obviously no. Therefore, a single act of corruption is sufficient to award an order of dismissal under the rules as gravest act of misconduct. The second part of the rule connotes the comulative effect of conntinued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness of police service and that the length of service of the offender and his claim for pension should be taken into account in an appropriate case. The contention that both parts must be read together appears to us to be illogical. Second part is referable to a misconduct of minor in character which does not by itself warrant an order of dismissal but due to continued acts of misconduct would have insidious cumulative effect on service morale may be a ground to take lenient view of giving an opportunity to reform. Despite giving such opportunities if the deliquent officer proved to be incorrigible and founnd complete unfit to remain in service than to maintain discipline in the service, instead of dismissing the delinquent officer, lesser punishment of compulsory retirement or demotion to a lower grade or rank or removal from service without affecting his future chances of re-employment, if any, may meet the ends of justice. Take, for instance, the delinquent officer is habitually absent from duty when required. Despite giving an opportunity to reform himself, he continues to remain absent from duty off and on. He proved himself to be incorrigible and thereby unfit to continue in service. Therefore, taking into account his log length of service and his claim for pension he may be compulsorily retired from service so as to enable him to earn reportionate pension. The second part of the rule operates in that area. It may also be made clear that the vey order of dismissal from service for gravest misconduct may entail forfeiture of all pensionary benefits. Therefore, the word 'or' cannot be read as 'and' it must be disjunctive and independent. The common link that connnects both clauses is "the gravest act/acts of misconduct." The petitioner was found to have taken alcohol during duty hours and this was a gravest act of misconduct. In the light of the ratio of the judgment of the apex Court, reproduced supra, no fault can be found with the action taken by the disciplinary authority and affirmed on appeal by the appellate authority.;