G.C.MITAL, J. - (1.) Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurdev Singh, respondent, was working as Station House Officer, Police Station, Ladwa, on 17th of April 1972, when Tikka Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Thanesar, reached the Police Station. He found the respondent not present there and on enquiry was told that he had gone to his residence. When the respondent was called from his residence, he was found under the influence of liquor and on medical examination conducted by Dr. D.D. Chaudhary, it was found that he had taken alcohal. He was charged with being drunk while on duty and on departmental enquiry the charge was proved and a notice was issued to him by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him. The respondent submitted his explanation and the punishing authority by order dated 9th October, 1974, copy annexure P 6, which runs into seven pages, found on the basis of the evidence on record that the explanation of the respondent was false and accepting the evidence led against him, awarded the punishment of removal from service. Against order annexure P 6 the respondent filed civil writ No. 5971 of 1974, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court. The writ petition was contested by the State and in the written statement allegations contained in the writ petition were denied and it was stated that the act of being drunk while on duty for the incharge of a Police Station is an act of gravest misconduct, which was sufficient to justify the passing of the impugned order. A learned single Judge of this Court, however, allowed the writ petition by order dated 19th of February, 1976, on the ground that the punishing authority was not alive to the provisions of rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) as no finding was given that the misconduct attributed to Gurdev Singh was of the gravest type and also because there was no mention in the order that his length of service was also taken into consideration while awarding the punishment of dismissal. According to the learned Judge, if the aforesaid factors had been kept in view, the punishing authority might have awarded lighter punishment. However, it was admitted before the learned Single Judge on behalf of Gurdev Singh that he was guilty of misconduct although it was argued that such misconduct could not be classified as the gravest act of misconduct within the meaning of rule 16.2(1) of the Rules. The State of Haryana has come up in appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent against the decision of the learned Single Judge.
(2.) Shri Naubat Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has urged in support of the appeal that once it is admitted that the respondent was guilty of misconduct for being drunk while on duty, one of the first questions which will arise for consideration is whether In law this would amount to one of the gravest acts of misconduct within the meaning of rule 16.2 (1) of the Rules. In order to appropriate the argument, it will be useful to reproduce the sub-rule, which reads: "16.2(1). Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts misconduct, or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, in making such an award shall he had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension." The learned counsel goes on to highlight that Gurdev Sing was posted as incharge of Police Station as as Assistant Sub-inspector of Police and an officer becomes Assistant Sub-Inspector after a lapse of long service and is made incharge of Police Station only thereafter and all these facts were very well known to the punishing authority. The nature of duties of a police officer and especially of the incharge of a Police Station is such as to maintain the highest degree of discipline and his conduct has to be above board. Keeping these factors in view, if it is found that the incharge of a Police Station himself is drunk while on duty, what would be the position of the police force working under him. Under the circumstances, it is urged that once it is admitted that the respondent was drunk while on duty, such an act would be no less than one of gravest misconduct within the meaning of the aforesaid sub-rule and on this basis, it is contended that the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was perfectly valid in law and could not be interfered with by this Court.
(3.) The next argument of the counsel for the State is that this Court could interfere with the order of dismissal only if it was found that it was not based on any evidence, but once it is found that an officer is guilty of the charge of misconduct, then the question as to what punishment has to be awarded would only be within the jurisdiction of the punishing authority and this Court cannot interfere regarding the quantum of punishment. In support of the aforesaid argument, he has relied on State of Orissa and others v. Bidyabhushan Mahapatra, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 779- (pars 9), Bhagwat Parsad v. Inspector General of Police and others, 1967 S.L.R. 807- and a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in C.W. No. 4557 of 1978, Bhola Ram v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 21st of August, 1979-.;