Ex. Ct. (Gd) Ravinder Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1020 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. As the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service consequent upon a departmental proceeding initiated against him, he has preferred this writ petition challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents in removing him from service.

2. The petitioner was recruited into the Central Reserve Police Force on April 1, 1990. On September 12, 2001 the petitioner was on night sentry duty from 1930 hours to 2200 hours in Morcha No. 6 at Department Headquarter Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir. There he picked up a quarrel with another constable GD Swaran Singh while allegedly under the influence of alcohol and beat him with fists and kicks. It was also alleged that the petitioner loaded his service rifle and pointed its barrel towards another Jain Prakash who with the help of another colleagues was able to snatch the loaded rifle from the petitioner. A further allegation is also made that the petitioner under the influence of alcohol abused Guard Commander and other senior officers and created a lot of nuisance for quite some time and that therefore the petitioner was medically examined by the Unit Medical Officer. Due to the aforesaid reasons the Commandant, 5th Battalion, who is the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, suspended the petitioner from service and thereafter initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. In the said departmental proceeding Shri S.C. Rawat, Deputy Commandant, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter and to submit his report. Altogether three specific charges were drawn up against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. The respondents led evidence in support of the aforesaid charges and prosecution witnesses were examined. During the aforesaid proceedings the petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the charges. The Enquiry Officer recorded evidence of witnesses examined in the said proceedings and thereafter submitted his report on September 14, 2001 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges.

3. The Disciplinary Authority considered the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the records of the departmental proceedings and found that the said departmental enquiry was concluded strictly according to the rules and laid down procedure and instructions on the subject. After going through the records the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and held that all the three charges framed against the petitioner were proved beyond any doubt and found the petitioner guilty of all the three charges. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority held that the petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in the force and accordingly, by exercising powers vested under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner and his name was ordered to be struck off from the strength of the unit. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner submitted an appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter, the present petition was filed on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Raghav, appearing for the petitioner, that in the departmental proceedings although evidence was recorded but none of the articles of charges was proved. In support of his contention he has particularly referred to the contents of Article III wherein it was alleged that the petitioner under intoxication of liquor had shown gross insubordination and abused SI K.B. Thapa and HC Chaman Lal and other senior officers of the unit. It was submitted by the counsel that Sri K.B. Thapa in his deposition had flatly denied that the petitioner had even abused him on the night of September 12, 2001. He also submitted that as no blood test or urine test of the petitioner was conducted during the course of medical examination, therefore the findings recorded by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was intoxicated cannot be believed. He submitted that consumption of liquor by itself cannot be an offence and that as the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner as intoxicated by making a thorough medical and urine tests, therefore, the benefit of doubt must go in favor of the petitioner, and therefore he should be acquitted of the charges. It was also submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner in disproportionate to the offence alleged.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, refuted all the aforesaid submissions by drawing our specified attention to the various records including the evidence adduced.

6. In view of the petitioner's contention that there was no material to find him guilty, we have carefully looked into the evidence adduced by the respondents in the departmental proceedings. That the petitioner consumed liquor on the fateful day is an admitted position. The petitioner was medically examined on the night of September 12, 2001 and the medical report indicates that the petitioner was under intoxication. It is recorded in the said report that the petitioner was in unstable mood and there was loss of restraint. His state of dress was also recorded as soiling of clothes with alcoholic smell. His speech was thick, slurred and over precise. There was also loss of self control and had a alcoholic smell per breath. His gait was staggering, irregular and lurching. His blood sample could not be taken as he was very excited and was not cooperative. The aforesaid report clearly proves and establishes that the petitioner was highly intoxicated. The reason for absence of blood and urine tests is evident on the face of the said medical report. No blood sample could be taken because the petitioner was very excited and was also not cooperative. The enquiry officer upon appreciation of the evidence on record found that the charges against the petitioner stood proved.

7. The present case cannot be said to be a case of no evidence. In fact, reliable and cogent evidence is on record to indicate that the petitioner was not only under intoxicated state but also abused officers like Chaman Lal. It is true that SI K.B. Thapa had stated in his evidence that the petitioner did not abuse him. But the evidence of Chaman Lal clearly indicates that the petitioner under intoxication of liquor had shown gross insubordination and also abused him. This court in a case of departmental proceedings cannot re-appreciate the evidence adduced by the witnesses. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer clearly prove and establish that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority after going through the records was also satisfied that the charges were proved. Under the said circumstances we cannot hold that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the offence alleged against him.

8. In the light of the facts proved and established in the present departmental proceedings, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment awarded against the petitioner is legal and just and the same cannot be interfered with.

9. In view of the findings and conclusions arrived at by us, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.