The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment order against an employee must provide good and sufficient reasons, and a non-speaking order is not sufficient.

JUDGMENT :

1. Discipline is the hallmark of the disciplinary forces and its members are not expected to violate the discipline by consuming liquor and wander in a public place in a drunken condition. Whether such persons can held guilty and punished for such charge without passing a speaking order and without recording just and sufficient reasons? It is in this background the issue involved in this petition is required to be considered.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned non-speaking orders dated 08.11.2011 and 17.02.2011, the petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:-

“i) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure-7) passed by Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer.

ii) to quash and set aside the order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by Superintendent of Police, District Tonk.

iii) to discharge the petitioner from the charges leveled against him and to revoke the penalty imposed on him.

iv) Any other appropriate order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

v) Cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

Submissions by the petitioner:

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was chargesheeted under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958’) with the charge that on the fateful day i.e. 17.12.2010, the petitioner was found in drunken state and due to his imbalance, he sustained certain injuries for which he was medically examined and he was found in drunken state wandering around quarters of the police line. Counsel submits that a detailed reply to the chargesheet was submitted by the petitioner wherein, the petitioner submitted that he was not on duty on that day and he was suffering from mental illness, for which he took medicine and due to reaction of the said medicine, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Counsel submits that even preliminary enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry it was found that the petitioner was not on duty and he was suffering from mental disease. Counsel submits that discarding all these aspects, the disciplinary authority found him guilty and on the basis of the report so furnished to the disciplinary authority the punishment order has been passed against the petitioner by which his one annual increment without cumulative effect has been withheld. Counsel submits that against the said order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority but over looking the grounds raised in the appeal, the appeal has been dismissed. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the order passed by the respondents be quashed and set aside. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Pratap Singh vs. The Superintendent of Police And Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1987/98 decided on 13.08.2002.

Submissions by the respondents:

4. Per contra counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was part of a discipline force and he was supposed to act and behave in disciplined manner but he was found in drunken state and due to intoxication, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. When the petitioner was medically examined by the medical Officer, this fact was further verified that the petitioner was found to be intoxicated and that he had consumed alcohol on the fateful day. Counsel submits that after affording opportunity of hearing, an enquiry was conducted against him wherein, he was found guilty. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed withholding his one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. Counsel submits that the scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters and the Court s