JUDGMENT

Deepak Roshan, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority; whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the revisional authority; whereby the order of dismissal of the petitioner has been sustained.

3. Among other grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner argued on the question of quantum of punishment. He contended that even assuming the alleged charge to be proved, then also dismissal from service is not proportionate punishment. He further relied upon the order passed in the case of Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(S) No. 1861 of 2008] and submits that the same is applicable in the instant case, inasmuch as, in the instant case also there is charge against the petitioner of being drunk; however, the petitioner was not medically examined during the departmental enquiry.

He further submits that the officer-in-charge under whom the F.I.R. was lodged has also not been examined which clearly transpires from the enquiry report.

In this view of the matter, the case may be remitted back to the respondent-authorities to reconsider the case only on the issue of quantum of punishment in the light of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1861 of 2008, wherein this Court has remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order on quantum of punishment.

4. Ms. Priyanka Bobby learned counsel for the respondent-State supports the impugned orders and submits that there is no procedural irregularity and the witness who has not been examined was not due to the fault of the Inquiry Officer; rather every effort was taken by the Inquiry Officer to call that officer in charge. Further the Inquiry Officer has dealt every aspect of the matter which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority.

On the question of quantum of punishment, she submits that even in past the petitioner was found guilty as he was a habitual drunkard. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions; she submits that the instant application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavit, it appears that the petitioner has been dismissed from service after a proper departmental proceeding. It further transpires that there is no procedural irregularity in the proceeding and principles of natural justice has been duly followed. However, from last paragraph of the impugned order it appears that even prior to this incident; the petitioner has been found guilty of being drunk and punishment has been imposed upon him.

In view of this fact, the ground of the petitioner that the petitioner was not medically examined during the departmental proceeding appears to be worth consideration, inasmuch as, the order of punishment has taken note of the fact that the petitioner is a habitual drinker. In this regard reference may be made to paragraph 5 of the judgment passed in the case of Arun Kr. Singh (Supra) wherein this Court has held as under:-

"5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the charge against the petitioner is of being drunk, the petitioner was not medically examined during the departmental enquiry. Except one Shiv Lal Shaw, no other witness was produced by the department and therefore, the enquiry officer has reached at a wrong conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved. He has relied on various orders passed against other employees who were awarded lesser punishments for charge of firing gun-shots."

After going through the aforesaid order, it appears that this Court after giving several findings remanded the mat