IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 1648 of 2010 Decided on 6.5.2010 Vidya Sagar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the Petitioners : T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma,Dy AG. Justice R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (a) That the writ of Certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing the Annexures P-8 and P-9. (b) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent No.2 directing them to exonerate the petitioner. 2. By order dated 13.8.2009 Annexure P-8, the appeal of the petitioner before Dy. Inspector General of Police, regarding imposition of punishment of increment for three years was rejected. By an order dated 10.2.2010 Annexure P-9, the revision petition preferred against the order dated 13.8.2009 was dismissed by Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. 3. In order to adjudicate the present writ petition, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. The petitioner alongwith other police personnel namely HC Surinder Kumar No. 31, Const. Ram Parkash No. 307 and Const. Birbal Ram No. 472 were deputed for security duty w.e.f. 31.10.2008 to 4.11.2008 in the girls hostel of P.G. College, Bilaspur during the Youth festival. On 4.1.2008 at about 11 P.M some miscreants allegedly were peeping through the windows in the rooms of girls staying in the Hostel and the complaints to the Police personnel on duty were made. Allegations were made that the police personnel on duty had consumed liquor. The girls and boys taking part in the youth festival raised slogans against the police personnel and were demanding that action be taken against the police personnel on duty Keeping in view the gravity of the situation the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspour reached the spot and had handled the situation. The above named personnel who were deployed for security duty were got medically examined. A departmental enquiry was ordered against all the above named personnel. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer served charge-sheet to the petitioner/delinquent official. Required documents were supplied to the petitioner, witnesses were examined and after completion of enquiry, enquiry report was submitted on 26.2.2010, wherein the charges against the petitioner were found proved. The Superintendent of Police, Bilmaspur, District Bilaspur as a disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and proposed the imposition of minor penalty i.e. withholding of increments for three years temporarily without having cumulative effect on future increments and not adversely affecting the pension The petitioner was served with a show cause notice alongwith enquiry report as well as the proposed penalty. The reply of the show cause notice was obtained and thereafter the above penalty vide order dated 4.4.2009 (Annexure P- 5) was imposed by Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, as the disciplinary authority. 5. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, who also after careful consideration rejected the appeal by a speaking order dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure P-8). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision petition before Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, which too was rejected vide reasoned order dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure P-9). 6. The Superintendent of Police , District Bilaspur, vide its order dated 2.6.2009, while functioning as a disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the enquiry report, the testimony of witnesses as well as medical report and has agreed with the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority has already considered the case of the other alleged accused persons. The reply of the present petitioner in reference to a show cause notice was not found satisfactory. Disciplinary authority has indicated that the petitioner was found drunken on duty, which has been found fortified by the medical report. The students who came from out side were agitated on the conduct of the petitioner and other police personnel and with the great difficulty by deployment of additional police force requisitioned from outside, the law and order could be controlled. The disciplinary authority in his reasoned order dated 2.6.2009 has taken the view that the consumption of alcohol by the petitioner on duty is an indiscipline, dereliction of duty and carelessness and the proposed penalty has been accordingly affirmed. 7. In an appeal before Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Mandi, the petitioner has merely contended as follows:- (i) He was not supplied copy of enquiry report. (ii) The appellant was not on duty. Constable Ram Parkash No. 307 was on duty. At the time of checking the appellant was suffering from stomach pain and had taken phmomine medicine (which also smells) like alcohol and was having rest. (iii) The guard Incharge and other constables found absent at the time of checking have been censured and whereas the appellant has been awarded deterrent punishment which is against the law of justice. 8. In respect of above contentions, the comments of the Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur, are as follows:- (i) The copy of the enquiry report was served to the appellant along with a cause notice. (ii) The blood sample and urine sample preserved by the doctor have shown percentage of liquor in blood sample 281.7, Urine sample 287.5 which clearly indicates that the applicant had taken a huge quantity of liquor. (iii) The appellant has committed a grave misconduct and dereliction of duty as he was deployed on security duty in the Girls Hostel, P.G. College, Bilaspur during the youth festival. 9. Dy. Inspector General of Police as an appellate authority has seen the records, Memo of appeal, and comments of Superintendent of Police and has dealt with the contentions of the petitioner raised in the appeal. DIG/Appellate authority has observed that there is no force in the contentions of the petitioner that he had not consumed alcohol on 31.10.2008 but had taken such medicine for his ailment, which was giving smell likealcohol. Whereas, the Superintendent of Police has given due weightage that the petitioner was on duty and has consumed alcohol as the amount of alcohol in his blood sample & urine samples on medical list was more than 280 mg%, specifically proving that he has consumed alcohol. The averments of petitioner that he has not been served the enquiry report with a show cause notice has specifically been denied by the Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur. The petitioner’s contention that other police officials on duty found guilty were only given punishment of censure only, whereas, the petitioner has been discriminated and awarded higher punishment, has been denied. The petitioner for consuming alcohol on duty has been awarded the punishment in question, vide an order dated 13.8.2009 and the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. 10. Though the Director General of Police in its order dated 10.2.2010 has mentioned that there is no provision of second appeal in the Police Rules, however, keeping in view of the principle of natural of justice, the revision of the petitioner has been considered under Rule 16.32 of Punjab Police, Rules. The Director General of Police in its order dated 10.2.2010 has noted that the contentions of the petitioner who has assailed the appellate order dated 13.8.2009 passed by DIG on following grounds. (a) The impugned punishment has been awarded without application of mind. (b) The reply to show cause notice was not taken into consideration. (c) The appellate order has been passed without application of mind and non supply of the preliminary enquiry report to him has prejudiced his defence. (d) When SP Bilaspur visited the spot, he was not on duty as per the duty roster. Being off the duty, there was no misconduct in taking liquor as that does not fall in the ambit of discipline. (e) The other police personnel who were deployed alongwith him, had run away from the spot as they had taken liquor but he did not conceal his physical condition. In the sample report 280 mg% of alcohol has been reported which is normal within the medical code. As a matter of fact the petitioner had taken Phomonine which is a tonic and contains liquor contents. Furthermore, the medical certificate mentions that though he had consumed liquor but was not under the influence of liquor. (f) The other officials have been given lesser punishment. (g) The other police personnel deployed for duty ran away from the place of duty and he was the only personnel available to face the exigency. (h) The petitioner had put in 16 years of service with clean record and has been awarded number of commendation certificates which has not been given weightage. 11. The Director General of Police in its order dated 10.2.2010 has dealt with all the contentions and averments and grounds raised by the petitioner and as observed that the joint enquiry was conducted in reference to the incident in question and the petitioner alongwith other police personnel were held guilty of not performing duty properly vis-à-vis absence from duty. Consumption of alcohol by the petitioner on sensitive duty amounts misconduct. The factum of consumption of alcohol on duty was proved in departmental enquiry based on the evidences on record. After serving a show cause notice with the enquiry report and after obtaining the reply thereto the disciplinary authority has affirmed that proposed penalty. The Director General of Police in its order dated 10.2.2010 has also stated that the petitioner was found to be under the influence of liquor while being deployed on sensitive duty on 31.10.2008. The plea of the petitioner that he was not on duty has also been found incorrect as the consumption of alcohol by the petitioner was proved by the medical report and all the police personnel involved in misconduct, have rightly been punished. 12. Keeping in view of the misconduct and the act of petitioner, Director General of Police has observed that punishment was found proportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner which has rightly been awarded after following the due process of law. 13. It has consistently been held that strict Rules of evidence are not applicable in a departmental enquiry. In the case of Bank of India Vs. Degala Suryanaraina, (1996) 5 SCC 762, the Apex Court has observed:- “Strict Rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer.” In State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512, the Supreme Court has laid down that “It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.” Similarly view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in South Bengal State Transport Corporation Vs. Span Kumar Mitra &Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 584). In Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 1795 the Apex Court held that preponderance of probability and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent had committed the misconduct. Standard of proof, the mode of enquiry, and rules governing the enquiry, and a trial are completely different. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.s Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishapayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623, held that in domestic inquiry the procedure followed in the Courts is not required to be followed. In Naresh Gonind Vaze Vs. Government of Maharastra & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 514, it has been held that the Inquiry Officer appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against a delinquent officer is neither a Court nor the provisions of the Evidence Act are applicable. In Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Apex Court held that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the enquiry officer performs a quasi- judicial function. 14. In our considered view keeping in view the charges against the petitioner and the facts and circumstances, the imposition of punishment does not shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of Meghalaya & Ors. Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak, (2008) 7 SCC 580, the Supreme Court has observed that a Court or a Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority unless shocks the conscience of the Court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hazarilal, (2008) 3 SCC 273, the Apex Court held that the issue of proportionality may always be determined by the Court and Court is clear with the order of determination. While deciding the said case, Apex Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Coimbatore District Central Co- operative Bank Vs. Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Association & Anr., (2007) 4 SCC 669; and M.P. Gangadharan & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2360. (See also Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. P. Jayaram Reddy, (2009) 2 SCC 681). 15. We have also considered the case of the petitioner specifically the stand taken before the appellate authority, and the manner in which the contentions and averments were dealt with by the appellate authority as well as Director General of Police and we find that in departmental enquiry provisions of CPC and Evidence Act are not applicable in entirety. In our considered view we do not find any scope of interference in the order dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure P- 7), order dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure P-9). Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Copy Dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice May 6, 2010(k/s) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge