Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Jagdish Chander on 30 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058701
CM-4282-C-2024 in/and RSA-1975-2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:058701
(101) CM-4282-C-2024 in/and
RSA-1975-2008
Date of Decision : April 30, 2024
State of Haryana and others .. Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Chander .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate,
for the applicant-respondent.
Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
for non-applicant/appellants.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-4282-C-2024
Present application has been filed for fixing the actual date of
hearing of the main appeal.
Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.
Mr. Harish Nain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/appellants. He raises no
objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. On joint
request of learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal is taken up for
hearing today itself.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058701
RSA-1975-2008
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgments and
decrees of the Courts below by which, the suit filed by the respondent-
plaintiff challenging the order of punishment dated 03.11.2000 by which,
two increments of the respondent-plaintiff without cumulative effect was
stopped, has been set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present
appeal, the Courts have appreciated the evidence which has come in the
enquiry proceedings which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court hence,
once the respondent-plaintiff was held guilty of the allegations alleged, he
was rightly punished though, with the minor punishment of stoppage of two
increments without cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the appellants
further submits that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are
perverse as, it has already come on record that the respondent-plaintiff had
consumed the liquor during the duty hours.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the
present appeal was filed in the year 2008 and the minor punishment
imposed on him vide order dated 03.11.2000 has already been set aside and
the respondent-plaintiff has already retired from service and is getting
pension as of now.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff further submits
that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are in-consonance with
the evidence and facts which have come on record that the respondent-
plaintiff was smelling of liquor and no finding has come on record that his
blood or urine was ever tested to find out as to whether, the respondent-
plaintiff had consumed alcohol or not. Learned counsel for the respondent-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058701
plaintiff further submits that merely the smell of liquor coming from the
mouth of the respondent-plaintiff is not to hold him guilty especially when
it is not the case of the appellants that the respondent-plaintiff was under the
influence of the liquor in the duty hours.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below have been
passed on the basis of the facts which have come on record. The trial Court
in paragraph 12, has given the details of the evidence which has come on
record to record the finding that the doctor had only given the opinion that
the respondent-plaintiff was smelling of liquor but conceded that there was
no blood or urine test conducted on the patient so as to opine that the liquor
was consumed while on duty or the respondent-plaintiff was under the
influence of the liquor during the duty hours. The Court, on the basis of the
findings recorded by the enquiry officer to the effect, has held that once
there is no allegation that the respondent-plaintiff was under the influence
of the liquor during the duty hours especially in the absence of blood or
urine test, no allegation can be made or proved that the respondent-plaintiff
consumed the liquor during the duty hours or was under the influence of the
liquor during the duty hours. Once the said finding has been recorded by
the Courts below on the basis of the evidence which was part of the enquiry
report only, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below needs no interference.
7. Further, it has already come on record in the judgment of the
lower Appellate Court vide order dated 12.04.2008 in paragraph 2 that the
doctor found the respondent-plaintiff normal at the time of examination and
has also conceded that smell of liquor might be due to consumption of
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058701
medicine or syrup prescribed by the doctor. Once, the said fact had already
come on record, keeping in view the concurrent findings recorded by the
Courts below, this Court will not like to interfere especially when the
respondent-plaintiff has already retired from service.
8. Further, merely that an employee smelling of liquor does not
mean that the employee is under the influence of the liquor. Once, no
blood or urine test has been conducted on the respondent-plaintiff, making
an allegation against an employee that he has consumed liquor or was under
the influence of the liquor, cannot be allowed to operate. If the Department
was of the opinion that the respondent-plaintiff had consumed liquor, it was
their duty being that respondent-plaintiff who was a police officer, should
have get him medically examined and get his blood or urine test conducted
so as to substantiate the said fact/allegations. In the absence of any blood
or urine test conducted on an employee and making an allegation and that
too in the departmental enquiry that the employee was under the influence
of the liquor, has rightly been rejected by the Courts below.
9. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the
present case.
10. Dismissed.
April 30, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
