1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his dismissal dated 9.8.1996 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer and the order dismissing his appeal dated 3.12.1996. The charge against the petitioner was that while he was posted as Constable Driver with M.T. Branch of Police in Ajmer, he in the night intervening 23rd and 24th March, 1995 consumed the liquor at the residence of Daulat Singh and had about 12.00 AM unauthorisedly entered the house of Hukam Singh. Thereupon, Hukam Singh and his wife raised hue and cry. He was taken to Police Station, Civil Lines, Ajmer and Hukam Singh lodged against him FIR No.60/95 for offence under Section 457, 354, 504 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. His such conduct, was unbecoming of a member of Police service and an employee of police department, earned bad name to the Police Department and it was punishable as misconduct under relevant Government rules.

2. Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in so far as criminal case against the petitioner is concerned, he was acquitted in that case by order of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer dated 1.8.1996 and the same charges were there in the disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner could not be therefore penalised. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Sulekh Chand and Salek Chand v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.-1994 Supp (3) SCC 674 . Learned counsel argued that mere taking of liquor when the petitioner was not on duty, cannot be said to be such a grave misconduct as to warrant his dismissal from service. The petitioner is having unblemished service record of 16 years and was awarded commendation certificates as many as five times, which are enclosed as Annexures-1 to 6 with the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that even the evidence that has been discussed by the enquiry officer in his report was that none of the witnesses supported the allegation against the petitioner that he misbehaved with or tried to outrage the modesty of, the wife of Hukam Singh. The evidence that has come on record and that has been believed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority is that the petitioner under the influence of the liquor knocked the main door of residence of Hukam Singh and they thereupon woke up and raised hue and cry. None of the witnesses supported the allegation, which is why the criminal court also acquitted him. Learned counsel submitted that even if the petitioner as a Constable was found under the influence of liquor, that itself would not be a offence because no prohibition was there in the State on consumption of liquor.

3. Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgements of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana-1983 (2) SLR 159 and Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana-1983 (2) SLR 645. Learned counsel also relied on the judgement in Samrath Lal v. UOI & Anr.-1990 (1) WLN 426 and argued that the disciplinary authority and the appellant authority in the present case have held that misconduct of the petitioner was involving moral turpitude whereas this Court in Samrath Lal, supra held that mere taking liquor does not involve moral turpitude. The disciplinary authority acted wholly arbitrarily in awarding extreme penalty of dismissal inasmuch as the appellant authority has committed same mistake by mechanically upholding that order without application of mind and without complying with the requirement of Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 which inter alia provides that the appellate authority while considering the appeal has to examine; (a) whether the procedure prescribed in the Rules has been complied with and if not such non compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of Constitution or in failure of justice; (b) whether the facts on whic