Judgment

K.RAMASWAMY, J.:- Special leave granted.

The respondent, while working as Gunman of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ropar, was dismissed from service by order dated February 11, 1980 by the Superintendent of Police, Ropar, on the charge that he was found heavily drunk in the evening of September 6, 1979 and was roaming at the bus stand wearing the service revolver. Traffic Constable, Gurbbachan Singh, brought him with difficulty in a jeep to the police station and the revolver was deposited in the malkhana and sent the respondent to the Civil Hospital for medical examination. The Doctor declared him as heavily drunk. He also had a quarrel with the doctor on duty and abused him. An enquiry into his conduct was conducted after following the prescribed procedure in this behalf and found him to have contravened Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Manual 1934, Vol. 11 for short the Rules. The departmental appeals denied against the respondent. Thereon he laid the suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal as confirmed in the departmental appeals was null and void, unconstitutional, illegal, ultra vires and opposed to the principles of natural justice. He also sought for consequential relief of reinstatement into the service with all consequential benefits. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal it was affirmed. The Civil Courts found that the order of dismissal was vitiated by not giving reasonable opportunity due to non-supply of the documents and the Inquiry Officer cross-examined the witnesses produced by the respondent. The disciplinary authority did not keep in view the mandatory provisions of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules. The High Court in Second Appeal No. 1159 of 1986 dated March 10, 1989 while holding that the respondent was supplied with the required documents and that the enquiry was not vitiated by cross-examination done by the Inquiry Officer, however, affirmed the decree on the ground that Rule 16.2(1) contemplates that "dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct"; taking drink is a single act and it is not a gravest act and the Superintendent of Police was not alive to the mandates of Rule 16.2(1) which envisages dismissal only for gravest acts of misconduct and the respondent had put in 17 years of service and would have qualified for pension after putting another 3 to 4 years of service and that was not kept in view.

2. Sri Harbans Lal, lcarned Senior Counsel for the respondent, did not canvass before us that the enquiry was vitiated for any infraction due to non-supply of the copies of the statements or the Inquiry Officers participation in the examination of the witnesses. The finding that there is no violation of the procedure laid down in Rule 16.2(4) and the Government instructions dated October 16, 1972, thus remained unquestioned. The finding that the respondent was heavily drunk on that day while on duty and that he was caught while wandering in the market with service revolver and when he was taken into custody by the traffic constable and was sent to the doctor, he abused the doctor on duty in the hospital, was not canvassed. The only question on those facts is whether the conduct of the respondent is gravest misconduct within the meaning of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules, which reads thus:-

"Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, in making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.

3. The contention of Sri Harbans Lal is that taking alcoholic drink as such is not a misconduct. The solitary act of drinking alcohol per se is not gravest misconduct. The respondent had put in 17 years unblemished record of service. Had he not been dismissed from service within two or three years, he would have qualified for pension; without taking these factors into consideration, the disc