JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.115 dated 5.3.2013 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also the appellate order as contained in Memo No.1315 dated 16.08.2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Constable under Jharkhand Armed Police and he was posted in JAP-7. Vide office order dated 27.09.2012 the department decided to initiate proceeding against this petitioner and the petitioner was suspended with effect from 31.10.2012 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. A draft charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner asking explanation and after looking to the reply filed by the petitioner to the draft charge-sheet, a final charge-sheet was issued on 10.11.2012.

The first part of the charge-sheet was that the petitioner always used to leave duty place without permission and take alcohol and he has misbehaved with the Superintendent of Police, Chatra. The second part of the charge-sheet is that the petitioner used to avoid the order of authority and go to village for taking liquor and create nuisance.

Pursuant to the issuance of charge-sheet, Inquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner participated in the inquiry proceeding and the Inquiry Officer proved the charge partly. He categorically held that it has not been proved that he has given/used filthy language with the Superior Officer; however, the Inquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty for going outside to take liquor with the villagers. Pursuant to the submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is guilty for both the charges.

The petitioner challenged the order of termination before the Appellate Authority, however he could not succeed.

4. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following submission for assailing the impugned order.

(i) The charge is vague and not specific, inasmuch as, no specific date has been given as to when and on which date and with whom he has been seen taking liquor.

(ii) Though one part of the charge has been proved by the Inquiry Officer that he used to go to the village and take liquor, but the other part of the charge that he has used filthy language with the Superior Officer has not been proved; as such the Disciplinary Authority without differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer should not have held that all the charges have been proved.

(iii) For holding any delinquent that he is under influence of liquor he should be medically examined and since in the instant case the petitioner has been alleged to have been habitual drunker no medical examination was done nor any medical examination was done earlier.

(iv) The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has taken note of the past convictions; however the same was not part of the charge; as such this finding is non-est in the eye of law. He lastly submits that no independent witness has been examined because the charge of taking liquor with the villagers cannot be proved without the deposition of any of the villagers. Relying upon the aforesaid contention learned counsel submits that the instant writ application should be allowed.

5. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that so far as the first contention of the petitioner that the charge is vague is misconceived. By going through the charge it transpires that it has been categorically stated that the petitioner is a habitual drunker and he frequently used to go to the village for taking alcohol; as such there was no need or occasion to give specific date as to on which date the petitioner has gone to take liquor.

On the second ground that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner for