The importance of strict adherence to rules and procedures in a disciplined force, and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. The petitioner was employed as Constable and posted at Police Station, Kharora, District Raipur when the petitioner was served a charge-sheet by order dated 9-9-1991 (Annexure 3) containing following charges:

(1) fnukad 4-6-91 dks 3 fnu ds vkkdfLed vodkl ij jokuk gksus ds i'pkr~ fnukad 29-6-91 rd vukf/kd`r:Ik ls vodkl izlkj djrs gq, drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgdj ?kksj ykijokgh iznfZr djukA

(2) fnukad 29-6-91 dks 23 x 4 Vkmu x'r M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr gksdj onhZ dh gkyr esa jkc ds us esa ene'r gksdj [kjksjk cl LVSaM esa IkMs jgukA

(3) fnukad 30-6-91 dks izkr% x.kuk ls ,oa jkf= esa Fkkuk gkftjh M~;wVh ls vuqkfLFkr jgdj jkc fi;s gkyr esa [kjksjk cl LVSaM esa ?kqers jgukA

(4) jkc ihus, vukf/kd`r :Ik ls xSjgkftj jgus ,oa vodkl izlkj djus dk vknh gksuk o nafMr fd, tkus ds mijkar Hkh vius vkpj.k essa lq/kkj u ykukA

2. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner after having a served list of witnesses, list of documents and memorandum of charges. The petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges on 17-9-1991 (Annexure 4) enclosing two medical certificates, one issued by private practitioner and Ors. issued by Assistant Surgeon, Civil Dispensary, Kharora, on an ordinary piece of paper. The enquiry officer- Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Simga, after having examined the case, submitted enquiry report on 23-5-1992 (Annexure 8) holding charge Nos. 1 and 4 as proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3 as not proved.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Raipur, disagreeing with the enquiry report on charge Nos. 2 and 3, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 26-5-1992 (Annexure 9). The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice vide Annexure 10.

4. The Disciplinary Authority, having considered reply of the delinquent officer- the petitioner, held all the charges found proved against the petitioner and removed the petitioner from services by order dated 11-6-1992 (Annexure 1).

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed statutory appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police on 25-6-1992 (Annexure 11). The Appellate Authority, having agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissed the appeal by order dated 11-12-1992 (Annexure 2).

6. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 11-6-1992 (Annexure 1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 11-12-1992 (Annexure 2) passed by the Appellate Authority on the grounds that the enquiry is perverse as there was no medical evidence against the petitioner so as to prove that the petitioner was found in drunken condition while performing his duties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/State, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority.

8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, it is evident that the contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing, is without any basis and deserves to be rejected. With regard to the next contention that there was no medical evidence, which went to prove that the petitioner was inebriated in duty, the petitioner has not produced proper medical certificate but two medical certificates, one issued by private practitioner and Ors. issued by Assistant Surgeon, Civil Dispensary, Kharora, on an ordinary piece of paper, which cannot be given any credence. It is clearly found on the basis of sufficient evidence that the petitioner was inebriated in duty and was found lying on the ground while he was in uniform. Thus, the contention, that there was no medical evidence to prove the inebriated condition of the petitioner, is frivolous. There is sufficient evidence as the enquiry was based on examination of several w