Basanta Nath vs State of Assam and Others

D.N. Baruah, J.—In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has. challenged the annexure - D order dated 3.9.93 passed by the 4th Respondent dismissing the Petitioner from service with immediate effect, annexure - E appellate order dated 2.2.94 passed by the 3rd Respondent and also annexure - F order dated 23.5.94 passed by the Assam Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati (Respondent No. 2) refusing to admit the appeal.

The facts of the case may be stated as follows:

The petioner was a constable in 14th Assam Police (Armed) Bn and he was serving since 1987. By annexure - A notice dated 24.3.93 the Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for misconduct commuted by him. Annexure - 13 was the statement of allegation. By annexure - C the Petitioner replied to first show cause notice and in para - 3 it was stated as follows:

On last HOLIDAY i.e. 8.3.93 Shri Bhumidhar Nath invited me to his house. Accordingly I went there in the evening. There he offered me some alcoholic drink for celebration of the occasion of FAGUA. I also offered him some money to get some more liquor which he arranged from some nearby place. We both took liquor at his place, where his wife Smti Kusum Nath also helped us with some fishfry. Probably, I took much liquor as a result of which I could not probably take control of myself and got involved in some action as a dead drunkard.

An enquiry was held against the Petitioner and on completion of the enquiry the disciplinary authority found the Petitioner guilty and accordingly, by annexure - D order dated 3.9.93 the services of the Petitioner were terminated. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority viz. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Armed Police) and the said appellate authority after consideration upheld the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assam Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati. However, the said Tribunal also refused to admit the appeal. Hence the present petition.

I have heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, for the Respondents.

The main contention of Mr. Rajbarbhuiya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that though the Petitioner was found guilty, the order of dismissal from services is too harsh and therefore, it needs to be interfered with by this court. Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam on the other hand has supported the action of the authority.

From the record it appear that in annexure - C reply the Petitioner himself admitted the incident, He also admitted that he took much liquor as a result of which

he got drunk and he committed the said offence. Mr. Rajbarbhuiya submits that at the time when the offence took place, was a holiday i.e. the day of "FAGUA" and taking liquor on off duty is not an offence. It is true taking liquor on off duty is not an offence. But at the same time going to a nearby place taking much liquor and becoming drunk showing indecent behaviour to a lady can not be said to be just and proper. Mr. Rajbarbhuiya has drawn my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, In the said case the Supreme Court observed that while on duty drinking of alcohol was a gravest misconduct. However taking to drink by itself may not be a misconduct, Out of office hours one may take to drink and remain in the house. But being on duty, the disciplined service like police service, the personnel shall maintain discipline and shall not resort to drink or be in a drunken state while on duty.

In the present case the Petitioner went to the house of Anr. person. He took excessive liquor and became drunk and behaved indecently with a lady. An employee of the disciplined force can not be expected to do so. In my opinion this is a serious misconduct on the pan of the Petitioner and I feel that the order of dismissal is not too harsh.

In view of the above I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.