Allegations of misconduct, especially those involving major penalties, must be supported by conclusive evidence. The Disciplinary Authority must consider the individual's past conduct and surrounding circumstances before imposing punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

Heard Sri Utkarsh Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur dismissing the petitioner from service, the order dated 31.1.2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi dismissing the Appeal and the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Telecommunications), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dismissing the Revision filed by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner who was posted as a Constable at Reserve Police Lines, Lalitpur was allegedly found drunk on 20.6.2009. It was alleged that while he was drunk, he had misbehaved with the Station Officer Sri Baljeet Singh. It had, still further, been alleged that after a complaint about the petitioner's drunkenness was made, a medical examination was done and he was suspended on 23.6.2009. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and upon finding that the allegations were prima facie correct, enquiry under Rule 14 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, upon finding that the petitioner was guilty of misbehaviour while he was drunk, submitted his enquiry report on 30.6.2009. In the Preliminary Enquiry report the Enquiry Officer had also given a finding that the petitioner was to be punished with a major penalty. Thereafter under Rule 14(1) of the Rules, the Enquiry Officer issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on 30.7.2009 charging him with the allegation that on 20.6.2009 after consuming liquor, he had misbehaved with the Station Officer. The petitioner replied to the charges on 10.8.2009 and thereafter upon completing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer on 3.10.2009 submitted his enquiry report again with a recommendation for a major penalty. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur upon receiving the enquiry report, issued a show-cause notice on 9.9.2009 to the petitioner to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 26.10.2009 to the show cause notice with a request to drop all proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter on 31.10.2009, an order of punishment was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner against the order dated 31.1.2010 filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi which came to be dismissed on 31.1.2010. Thereafter the Revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.1.2010 also met the same fate on 29.4.2010. This order was passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Telecommunications), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

4. Broadly, the petitioner has made the following submissions:

(i) There was no conclusive medical examination done on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless a proper urine test or a blood test was done, the fact that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and had thereafter in an inebriated state misbehaved with the Station Officer could not be conclusively proved. Learned counsel, to bolster his case, relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra : (1971) 3 SCC 930 and the judgments of this Court in Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India (Writ-A No.67355 of 2007 decided by order dated 15.5.2019) and in Shiv Raj singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ-A No.2230 of 2014 decided by order dated 28.3.2018).

(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the medical report was prepared under the influence of the Station Officer who was physically present at the hospital despite the fact that his presence was not required at all and, therefore, the examining doctor namely Doctor Arjun Sin