[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 29 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
RSA-3469-2006 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3469-2006 (O&M)
SURINDER KUMAR (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRs AND
OTHERS ......Appellants
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
Reserved on: 08.04.2026
Pronounced on: 29.04.2026
Uploaded on: 01.05.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate and
Mr. A.K. Agnihotri, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Lalit Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal is preferred against judgment and decree
dated 13.05.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh whereby,
appeal filed by respondents against judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005
passed by learned learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh was
allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the civil suit are that appellant was
working as constable in Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Nangal. On
03.10.1999 from 06.00 AM to 02.00 PM he was deputed on duty at the
house of General Manager, NFL, Nangal. At about 10.00 AM during duty he
was found under the influence of liquor. Chargesheet was issued to him on
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-3469-2006 (O&M)
05.10.1999. He replied to the same and denied the allegations against him.
Inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted his report on 15.11.1999
holding him guilty for charge of grave indiscipline and negligence for being
found under the influence of liquor. On the same day i.e. 15.11.1999 show
cause notice was issued to him to which he submitted his reply. Ultimately
vide order dated 04.12.1999, he was removed from service. He filed
departmental appeal against the same which was dismissed on 25.07.2000.
He filed civil suit challenging order of dismissal dated 04.12.1999 and
Appellate Authority's order dated 25.07.2000. Civil suit filed by him was
partly decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005
passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh with the direction
to respondents to take up the enquiry proceedings from the stage of evidence
of doctor. Respondents filed appeal against the same which was allowed by
learned District Judge, Chandigarh vide its judgment and decree dated
13.05.2006. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that learned First
Appellate court wrongly set aside well-reasoned judgment and decree dated
15.09.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh. He,
therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal be allowed.
4. He relies on the following judgments to support his arguments:-
i. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary
and Ors., 2020(5) ADJ 92 (Allahabad High Court);
ii. Salim Kumar B.S. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.,2021 (6) KHC
380 (Kerala High Court)
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the
appeal filed by the respondents has rightly been allowed by learned District
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-3469-2006 (O&M)
Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 13.05.2006. He,
therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole file of this case with their able assistance.
7. A perusal of the file shows that during departmental enquiry,
department examined two material witnesses. One was PW-5, Senior
Overseer who was present when appellant indulged in irrelevant and
incoherent talk with General Manager. Second material witness was PW-1,
Rajinder Kumar who was called at the spot and found that appellant was not
in full senses and was incoherent in talk with General Manager. He was also
not wearing his uniform properly and has also not shaved his face. Apart
from it, the report from medical examination of appellant was also tendered
in evidence. This report was denied by appellant. He stated that he had taken
cough syrups and there is similarity between smell of cough syrup and
liquor. The report of doctor says that appellant had refused to give sample of
blood and urine. Though the doctor was not examined and appellant also in
his statement denied that doctor demanded the sample of his blood and urine
for test, yet PW-2/Inspector J.S. Mann who took the appellant for medical
examination and who was present when appellant was medically examined
categorically stated that when the doctor demanded samples of blood and
urine from appellant, he refused to give the same. This witness was not
cross-examined by appellant during enquiry. Statement of PW-2/Inspector
J.S. Mann about the refusal of appellant to give samples of urine and blood
to find out if he was under the influence of liquor goes against the appellant.
Further appellant in his cross-examination though denied that he was under
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-3469-2006 (O&M)
the influence of liquor but volunteered that he had taken cough syrup since
he was suffering from cough etc. He admitted that he was taken to the
hospital for medical examination and denied that he refused to give blood as
well as urine samples to the doctor. He further admitted that he was also
punished about six times prior to the impugned order and admitted that
during enquiry, the witnesses who appeared against him had no enmity. He
admitted that he got opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. A perusal of
medical examination (Ex.D-18) shows that it is specifically stated that
appellant was smelling alcohol but he refused to give samples of blood and
urine.
8. Now coming to the judgments relied by learned counsel for the
appellants. The same are not applicable in the present case as the facts of the
present case are altogether different and distinguishable since it is admitted
fact that appellant refused to give blood and urine samples to prove that he
was under the influence of liquor.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in judgment
and decree dated 13.05.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh,
and the same is upheld.
10. Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is dismissed.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
29.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Saahil/Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
