Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Allahabad HC Quashes Service Dismissal Order Passed Against Police Constable Who Allegedly Misbehaved With SO In Inebriated State

Sparsh Upadhyay
19 May 2022 10:30 AM GMT
Allahabad high court, Rules Of Limitation, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Justice Shamim Ahmed,

The Allahabad High Court last week quashed an order passed against an Uttar Pradesh Police Constable removing him from service allegedly because he entered into an argument with the Station Officer in an inebriated state.

The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma observed that the finding, that the Constable was in a drunken state, was arrived at simply because the petitioner was smelling of alcohol.

Calling it an absolutely erroneous decision on the part of the Enquiry Officer, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur dismissing him from services.

The Court also quashed the orders passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi, and the Additional Director General of Police (Telecommunications), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow confirming his dismissal from service.

The Court also noted that neither any urine test done nor any blood test was conducted at that point in time when it was alleged that he had misbehaved with the Station Officer in an inebriated state.

"The moment an allegation was made with regard to drunkenness, either a urine test ought to have taken place or a blood test ought to have been conducted. In the absence of these two tests, the report by the Enquiry Officer becomes erroneous," the Court added.

Still, further, the Court opined that when the Disciplinary Authority was punishing the petitioner, it should have considered the fact that the petitioner had not in any manner indulged in any activity which could be termed as "indiscipline".

Under such circumstances, the Court opined that the orders impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. With this, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, the writ petition was allowed.

Advocate Utkarsh Malviya appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Vikram Bahadur Yadav appeared for the respondents.

Case title - Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 42698 of 2010]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 246

Click here To Read/Download Order

Next Story