A??LEC£3T 10H UHD% JEN? '01 lg {W THE. ADVII1\TZS”R£»L IVE TRIBU‘S 1985. o A; 9:0 \OO /1993. Far use in the TrWffice“ gym ¢49%§r \\\ {Date of filing ( £ mte 31:; Receipt ‘”gliii‘E < Registrat ion NO. g g %% REG ETRAB by yost. w‘a A‘az iAxm/zw W/vV‘V/xVVVVV m T HE Méir‘BEYA P EA DE‘SH ADMIE IS TRaT IVE YR :BU'N3L : JéBALPUB e BETWEm r l APVLIQHE~ nnola gingh, aged abom 43 years son of 8hr: ohoonnatn Slnga Constable (How Dlsmissed) No.330 Pollce Lanes, Ramur (MP ), resident 0f bmga, P G Singa, Elstrlct Ralpur (M i3 ) VEE§US 2. 11m mPlL CMKTSH 1 $tate of M P thrmugh wecretary Home Depar Went M hBhopala 2. D.I.G°Eaipur M r. 3. Superintenclent of §>oliee Baipur M.P. N"L ACT j \ . :Pwk 2— W29—6—91'@23x4 wwwiét WW%E&W£§W$W W wmwés§q$ml 3— W30~6~91$‘IW:W%®W%I£IW wwq§mwwmmiim wégf‘iEgH-am! 4— m%,w®ww%m@qa‘m WWWWWaWWw$WtfV Wmwaiwqm I" 2. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner after having served list of witnesses, list of documents and memorandum of charges. The petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges on 17-9-1991 (Annexuie-4) enclosing two medical certificates, one issued by private practitioner and other issued by Assistant Surgeon, Civil Dispensary, Kharora, on an ordinary piece of paper. The enquiry officer - Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Simga, after having examined the case, submitted k E enquiry report on 23-5-1992 (Annexure-8)’ holding charges No.1 and 4 as proved and charges No.2 and 3 as not proved. 3 3. The Superintendent of Police, Raipur, disagreeing with the enquiry report on charges No.2 and 3, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 26—54992 (Annexure—9). The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide Annexure-IO. 4. The disciplinary authon'ty, having considcred reply of ‘the delinquent oEcer — the petitioner, held all the charges found proved against the petitioner and removed the petitioner from services by order dated 11-6-1 992 (Annexure-l ). 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner tiled statutoiy appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police on 25-6-1 992 (Annexure~ ll). The appellate authority, having agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry oEcer and the disciplinary authority and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authon'ty, dismissed the appeal by order dated l 1—12-1 992 (Annexure-2). 6. The petitioner has tiled this petition impugning the order dated 11-64992 (Annexure-l) passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 11-12-1 992 (Annexure~2) passed by the appellate authority on the grounds that the en there w"as no medical evidence against the petitioner so as to prove that the petitioner‘was found 3 in drunken condition , while performing Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not atforded-sudicient opportunity ofhearing. quiry is perverse as k / his duties. 7. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State, supported the orders passed by the disciplinary on the contrary, authority as Well as by the appellate authority, M4” ‘ 4” f \ 8. Having ham‘d leamed counsel for the parties and having gene through the record, it is evident that the contention of the petitionor, that tho petitioner was not afforded oppmtunity of hearing, is without any basis and desewes to be rejected. With regard to the next contention that there was no medical evidence, which went to prove that the petitioner was inabiiated in duty, the petitioner has not produced proper medical certificate but two medical certificates, one issued by private practitionef and other issued by Assistant Surgeon, Civil Dispensaiy, Kharora, on an ordinary piece of paper, which cannot be given any credence. It is clearly found on the basis of suhicient evidence that the petitioner was inebriated in duty and was found lying on the ground while he was in uniform. Thus, the contention, that there was no medical evidence to prove the inebriated condition of the petitioner, is frivolous. There is sntiieient evidence as the enquiiy was based on examination of several witnesses and relevant documents. / V 3,.” 9. :I‘his is viell settled principle of law, as held in \ RC. Chatm'vedi‘ vs. Union of Indial, N State of U.P. and others vs. Ashok Kmnar hingh*and another?! Union of India vs. . ’_ M 1 (1995) 6 soc 749 2 (1996) i soc 302 v~ .€anayutham3, Kuldeeg Singh vs. Commissioner of Police m§ others", V.Ramana vs. A.P.§.R.T.C. and othersi State of ajastEmn am} another vs. Mohd. Awb Naz61 Sm; dicate Bank and others vs. Venkamsh Gurm'ao Kurafi7 that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process not the decision. In the present case, there is no rationality, illegality or procedural in'egulatity, which require interference in the findings of the enquiiy officer and the decision of the disciplinaiy authority for imposition of punishment of removal from service. 10. The petitioner belonged to a disciplined force, i.e., police. The Supreme Couit in the case of Siete of U.P. and others vs. Ashok Knitter Singh and another (Supra) has observed that a police constable, serving in disciplined force, which demands strict adherence to the rules and procedure more than any other department, in absenting himself from duty without permission, has / comniigedgrave misconduct. v l (1997) 7 soc 46‘3“ (1.999) 2 soc 10 (2005) 7 soc. 33s (2006) 1 scc 539 (2006) 3 soc 150 2006 (2) cent. 75 ulPmUIQwa- G a R 11. The Supreme Court, in the casc of Commissioner af Poiice vs. SEd Hussains has observed ihat in View of the nature of duties that a protector of law is required to perform, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority had committed any error imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the respondent, particularly when on several occasions he has been found guilty of misconduct. In the present case, there was not one incident but there were several incidents wherein the petitioner was found inebn'ated and remained absent from duties as contained in charge ‘ No.4. l2. For the reasons above-stated, there is no reason to interfere with the hndings recorded and order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 11—6-1992 (Annexure~1) and confirmed by the appellate authority Vide order dated 11-12-1992 (Annexure- 2) Thus, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. g / Sdl— . ' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge §