ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.2005, whereby he has been terminated from the service by the Superintendent of Police, Khargone and also against the order dated 22.1.2006, whereby the appeal has been dismissed confirming the order passed by the Superintendent of Police.

2. Facts of the case in short are as under:-

2.1. The petitioner was working as a Constable and posted at Police Line Barrack, Khargone. He was placed under suspension on the charge that on 10.5.2005 near about 24:00 hours, in uniform, he consumed the liquor, went to the Barrack of the Police Line and abused / misbehaved with the newly recruited Constable and other employee. The said incident was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.614 / 10.5.5. He was medically examined and found in an intoxicated condition. On 11.5.2005 near about 8:00 am, he again consumed the liquor and went to the Bajrang hotel situated in front of the Police Line and abused the employees. The report was recorded in the Rajnamcha Sanha No.635 / 11.5.2005. Again he was medically examined and found in a drunken condition. On the basis of the aforesaid incidents, a charge-sheet dated 14.6.2005 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Khargone and the petitioner was called upon to submit a reply within seven days.

2.2. Shri Santosh Singh Bhadoria, Station House officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer examined 16 certificates and 11 witnesses. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing to defend himself. The enquiry report was submitted in which both the charges were proved against him. The enquiry report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Khargone and a second show-cause notice was issued for submitting the reply / objection. The petitioner submitted reply that he was perturbed with the family problems, hence, consumed the liquor and was sleeping in the house. The newly appointed Constables were teasing him and falsely implicated him. He also sought pardon as he was the sole earning member of the family. The Superintendent of Police did not find substance in his reply and passed the order of dismissal from services.

2.3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Nimad Range, Khargone contending that for Charge No.1, he admitted his guilt and as per Paragraph – 224 of the Police Regulation, the mistake ought to have been considered sympathetically. It is further submitted by him that no separate finding has been given in respect of Charge No.2. It has further been submitted that he belongs to the tribal community, therefore, he consumed the liquor. The appellate authority examined his service record according to which, the petitioner had earned 74 rewards, 10 minor penalties and one big penalty, therefore, the learned appellate authority confirmed the punishment awarded by the learned Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, he preferred a mercy petition before the Director General of Police which has also been dismissed vide order dated 24.6.2006. Hence, the present writ petition is before this Court.

2.4. The respondents have filed a reply by submitting that the action has rightly been taken as per Paragraph – 214 of the Police Regulation. By the conduct of the petitioner, the image of the police in the public was tarnished, therefore, punishment for the removal of service has rightly been passed which entitles him ineligible to secure the employment in future. Being a member of a disciplinary force, he should have behaved in a decent manner in public .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was under suspension from the period w.e.f. 11.05.2005 to 15.9.2005, thereafter, he was removed from service on 5.11.2005. Since last 18 years, he is out of employment. At the time of termination, he was 36 years of age. During his service, he won 74 rewards, therefore, the punishment