IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 8080 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 8th February, 2010. Parampaljit Singh Petitioner through Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.4.2006 [Annexure P-6] passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby he has been dismissed from service. He also seeks quashing of the orders dated 23.06.2006, 5.9.2006 and 11.5.2007 dismissing his appeal, revision and mercy petition by the other superior Police Authorities. As per the allegations, the petitioner was posted on Guard Duty at the residence of an MLA on 22.8.2005 when on a surprise raid conducted by the SHO, Police Station, Sirhind, he was found under the influence of liquor. The petitioner was taken to the Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib for medical examination and as per the opinion of the Doctor, the petitioner had consumed liquor. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, followed by a regular inquiry in which the charges were proved. On consideration of the said inquiry report, the SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib vide his impugned order dated 4.4.2006 dismissed the petitioner from service. While concluding that the misconduct proved against the petitioner was of gravest nature, the Disciplinary Authority also kept in view the fact that “after his recruitment on 12.12.1978, the petitioner has been repeatedly found guilty of taking liquor while on duty and/or remaining absent from duties”. It was observed that during different times, the petitioner was found absent from duty for 1265 days and out of 27 years total service, 22½ years' service stood forfeited by way of one or the other punishments imposed upon the petitioner on different occasions. The petitioner went in appeal followed by a revision petition before the superior Authorities but the same were also dismissed. So was the fate of his mercy petition submitted before the Director General of Police, Punjab. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length and also perused the material brought on record. There is indeed no denial to the fact that the petitioner has been repeatedly held guilty of remaining absent from duties and/or being under the influence of liquor while on duty. Earlier also, the petitioner was dismissed from service but the Appellate Authority took lenient view though some other major penalty was imposed upon him. There is also no denial to the fact that out of 27 years' total service, 22½ years' service of the petitioner stands forfeited as a result of one or the other punitive action, may be for the purposes of grant of annual increments. The petitioner appears to be an incorrigible and habitual in taking liquor while on duty and/or absenting from his duty. He being a member of the disciplined force, such kind of [mis]conduct can be ill-afforded. In these circumstances, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority can not be said to be disproportionate to the nature of charges proved against the petitioner nor it pricks the conscious of the Court, that may call for an interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. February 08, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE