The High Court set aside a punishment order imposing stoppage of one annual increment on a police constable for liquor consumption. The court held it harsh to punish the petitioner as he was off-duty, not under influence, and merely sleeping.
Impugned order of stoppage of increment set aside and petition allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.2160 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.2160 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 26.4.2011
Ram Bhaj
PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Shri Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved of the punishment of stoppage of one increment which has been inflicted upon him for the reason that he had consumed liquor. A regular enquiry was conducted against him and the Enquiry Officer on examination of the due material before it which included the report of the Medical Officer, concluded that even though the petitioner had consumed liquor, yet he was not under its influence and further, he had not misbehaved with anyone. The Enquiry Officer also noticed the fact that the petitioner was not on duty at the relevant time and that he was sleeping on his bed.
By virtue of Annexure P-4, after considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Jind differed with the
C.W.P. No.2160 of 2010 -2-
recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of having consumed liquor and directed a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed, but in revision, a lenient view was taken and stoppage of one increment with permanent effect was awarded to the petitioner.
In the instant writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is erroneous, as the fact that the petitioner was not on duty, was not taken into consideration and he was also not under the influence of liquor and merely because he had consumed liquor during the time when he was off duty, would not constitute any offence, more so, when he has not indulged in any mischief or had misconducted himself.
Learned counsel for the respondents has justified the passing of the order on the ground that since the petitioner is a police constable, it is expected that he would not be indulging in consumption of alcohol, more so, when he was posted in the Police Chowki.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. There is a specific reference emanating from the cross-examination of the witnesses examined during the course of the enquiry that the petitioner was not on duty. The Medical Officer opined that even though the petitioner had consumed alcohol, yet he was not under its influence. There is also some material to suggest that the petitioner had not misconducted himself and as per the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, he was merely sleeping on his own cot.
Having regard to the aforesaid factors, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner was not on duty and had afforded some indulgence in his own favour, and because he did so without offending the sensibility of any of the persons around him, it would be harsh to inflict any punishment upon him, more
C.W.P. No.2160 of 2010 -3-
so, when such an indulgence was reportedly within the limits as determined by the Medical Officer.
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the petition stands
allowed.
(MAHESH GROVER) April 26, 2011 JUDGE GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
2 issues framed by the court
Whether stoppage of increment for liquor consumption constitutes valid punishment when employee was off-duty and not under influence.
Whether minor indulgence of employee in absence of duty performance justifies no punishment.
Ram Bhaj
State of Haryana
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
