0' Ogl{@.\ CD ON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPQR WRIT PETITION S N . SQ; 2010 3mm 5mm; BEFORE THE H x, PETITIONER: Tejsingh Dhurv S/o Mohan Singh Dhurv, 'Aged about 27 years, Caste Gond, R/o Village Jamahi, Post Tarighat Thana Rajim District Raipur, C.G. VERSUS 1. / State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G.. 2. /‘Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter Raipur, C.G. 3./ Inspector General of Police Bastar Zone, Lalbagh, Jagdalpur, C.G. 4./ Superintendent of Police, District North Bastar, Kanker, C.G. ' RE§PONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION INDIA PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5813 OF 2010 Tejsingh Dhurv Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. * Present :— Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 20‘“ day of January, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case of the petitioner is that on 15—2—2009 he was deputed at Sarona Mela (village fair) for patrolling duty along with other constable namely; Nemsingh Nag. While discharging the duties, the petitioner along with Nemsingh consumed liquor and at that time, they lost their arms and ammunition. For which show cause notice was issued to the delinquent employees. After receipt of the reply and after completion 'of the enquiry, the petitioner was removed from the service whereas Nemsingh was punished with stoppage of one increment. Against the removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority; which has been rejected by order dated 21-7—2010 (Annexure — P/3). a Thus, this petition. Main grievance of the petitioner is that the appellant authority while considering the case of the petitioner on merits has ignored the provisions of Regulation 225 of the Police Regulations, which provides for consideration of anteCedents of the employee while imposing the punishment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the first incident, as in the past the conduct of the petitionerwas proper s [4 g i ’l (1996) ’1 SCC 302 and there was no complaint against the petitioner. Learned counsel relies on a circular dated 6-8—2003 (Annexure — P/7) to the effect that if the employee belongs to reserved category a lenient view may be taken while awarding punishment. 5. The petitioner/delinquent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. (See : State of U.P. and Others v. Ashok Kumar and Another7). 6. v. Singh Looking to the seriousness of the charge, particularly considering the fact that a person engagedin maintaining the law & order duty remains away not only from the duty, but indulged into consumption of liquor. which resulted into loss of arms & ammunition in a sensitive area and also considering the fact that the aforesaid fact has been found proved in the enquiry and admitted by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ'petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Agnihotri Satish K. Agnihotri Judge