Bipin Kumar Thakur v. State of U.P. and others), whereby learned Tribunal has dismissed the clai

which resulted in a scuffle between them and petitioner pushed Mr. Uma Shankar Yadav, which resulted in fracture in his hand. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 19.12.1997 and thereafter, inquiry was conducted by recording statements of the witnesses and their cross- examination by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 04.02.1998, whereby he made a recommendation for removal of the petitioner from service. The disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner alongwith copy of the inquiry report on 04.02.1998. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 18.02.1998.

5. The disciplinary authority, after considering reply of the petitioner and the entire material available on record, passed the order dated 22.02.1998, whereby he imposed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under U.P. Police Officers of the Sub-ordinate Rank (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1991') and the said appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.06.1998.

6. The petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and appellate order dated 19.06.1998 by filing Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1998 before learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, has dismissed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated

22.11.2007. 3 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 22.11.2007, punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and the appellate order dated

19.06.1998.

8. Shri Manish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is admitted fact between the parties that on the date of alleged incident, petitioner was on leave and therefore, the alleged act of the petitioner cannot be termed as misconduct. It has further been submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not comply with the procedure of inquiry contemplated under the Rules of 1991, as statements of the witnesses were recorded in absence of the petitioner and further he was not permitted to cross-examine the witness, therefore, the inquiry itself stands vitiated and consequently the punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and the appellate order dated 19.06.1998 are unsustainable.

9. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that main charge against him is that he consumed alcohol and in intoxicated condition scuffled with Constable, Uma Shankar Yadav in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli but without pathological examination of the blood and urine of the petitioner, doctor on the basis of physical appearance of the petitioner had given a report mentioning therein that the petitioner was in intoxicated condition and further during inquiry the said doctor was not produced as a witness to prove his report, as such, it is patently manifest that the main charge has not been proved in a proper manner. It has further been argued that the petitioner, in reply to the charge-sheet and his statement before the Inquiry Officer, had categorically submitted that he was ill and therefore, under the advice of a doctor at Lucknow, he had taken certain medicines on the date of incident and the said medicines may have had alcohol, as such, it was obligatory on the part of the Inquiry Officer to call upon the doctor and examine him in respect of the charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner and only thereafter, the said charge could have been proved, whereas in the case at hand, without calling doctor in the inquiry and without proving the report of the doctor, straight away Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report had recorded finding that the charge of consumption of alcohol and petitioner being in intoxicated condition at the time of incident, has been found proved. 4 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in respect of the charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Munna Lal Versus Union of India, 2010 (15) SCC 399 and judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Jai Mangal Ram Versus State of U.P. and others, 2024 (1) A.D.J. 219, and has submitted that the charge of consumption of alcohol cannot be proved unless pathological test of the blood and Urine of the government servant concerned is carried out.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges levelled against him and is shockingly disproportionate, as the incident in question is a simple scuffle between the petitioner and Constable Uma Shankar Yadav and due to said scuffle, Constable Uma Shankar Yadav fell down on the ground which resulted in fracture of a bone of his hand, therefore, even in the event of entire charge having been found proved, no prudent person could have awarded punishment of removal of service, as such the punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress his arguments in respect of the quantum of punishment has relied on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Tewari Versus Union of India, 2013 (6) S.C.C. 602 and Girwar Singh Tomar versus Union of India, 2007 (3) A.W.C. 2773.

13. It has also been argued that the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report has made recommendation for the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service and the disciplinary authority on the inquiry report had made endorsement that he agree with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, therefore, it is apparent that the disciplinary authority before issuing a show cause notice had already made up his mind to remove the petitioner from service.

14. Shri Manish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that it is apparent from the record that the allegations levelled regarding incident in question also involve a cognizable offence, 5 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 therefore, as per provisions made in Para 486 (1) of the Police Regulations, firstly, a report of the cognizable offence must have been registered in the Police Station concerned and only after the investigation and conclusion of trial, the departmental proceedings could have been initiated, whereas in the present case, the provisions made in Para 486 (1) of the Police Regulations have not been taken into consideration at all and without registering the report of the cognizable offence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he has been awarded with the punishment of removal from service.

15. Shri Manish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1998 (Bipin Kumar Thakur Versus State of U.P. and others), vide judgment and order dated

22.11.2007, has not considered the aforesaid arguments in correct prespective and therefore, the order of learned Tribunal unsustainable and further, the punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and appellate order dated 19.06.1998 are also unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid arguments, writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed and the punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and the appellate order dated 19.06.1998 are liable to be quashed by this Court.

16. Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has argued that the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.), which is a disciplined force and it was obligatory on the petitioner to maintain high standards of discipline of the said force but he, after consuming alcohol, entered in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli and in intoxicated condition scuffled with Constable Uma Shankar Yadav and pushed him on the earth, which resulted in a fracture in his hand thus, it is apparent that the petitioner has not only caused injury to Constable Uma Shankar Yadav but by consuming alcohol and having scuffle inside the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli has in fact dented the image and reputation of the disciplined force, therefore, after completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority, after considering each and every material available on record, had passed the order of 6 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 punishment, whereby petitioner had been removed from service.

17. It has been argued that after scuffle between the petitioner and Constable Uma Shankar Yadav, petitioner was presented before the doctor who on his examination had given a report, wherein, he had categorically mentioned that petitioner had consumed alcohol and was in intoxicated condition. The doctor's report was made part of the charge- sheet and was relied on in the inquiry and on that basis coupled with the evidence of other witnesses, the Inquiry Officer found the charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner and he having been found in intoxicated condition, proved. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the report given by the doctor was part of the charge-sheet and since petitioner in his reply did not raise any doubt about the genuineness of the said report, it was not obligatory for the Inquiry Officer to call upon the doctor to prove the said report and further if the petitioner was of the view that doctor should come and prove the said report, then the petitioner should have demanded from the Inquiry Officer that the doctor may be summoned but the petitioner did not raise such demand.

18. It has further been submitted that the petitioner himself has indirectly admitted in the inquiry that he had consumed alcohol, as he has stated that he had taken certain medicines on the advise of a doctor at Lucknow, which may contain alcohol and since during inquiry, he neither disclosed name of the doctor nor he produced any prescription issued by the doctor to show what medicines were prescribed to him and therefore, the Inquiry Officer, while considering the entire material available on record i.e. report given by the doctor, statements of the witnesses coupled with the fact that the petitioner could not disclose the name of doctor and also could not produce the prescription issued by the doctor prescribing him medicine containing alcohol, had found the charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner and he being in intoxicated condition at the time of incident, proved.

19. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that from bare perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, it is apparent that the detailed evidence of the witnesses had been recorded and petitioner 7 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 had also cross-examined them, therefore, it is apparent that the inquiry in the matter of petitioner has been conduced strictly in accordance with the provisions made in the Rules of 1991. It has further been argued that in Appendix-1 of the Rules of 1991, it is provided that the Inquiry Officer may also give his recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer and therefore, the Inquiry Officer in the present matter had made recommendation for punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on the Inquiry Officer had made endorsement that he agree with the punishment recommended by the disciplinary authority and thereafter he had issued a show cause notice alongwith the copy of the inquiry report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had considered the reply submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notice in detail and had passed the order of punishment, which is strictly in accordance with law.

20. It has also been argued that even otherwise, the charge levelled against the petitioner was absolutely serious and that had been found proved by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the detailed evidence led in the inquiry, therefore, if at all, there was any procedural infirmity that would not be of much a relevance as petitioner nowhere has pleaded that any prejudice has been caused to him by the said procedural infirmity.

21. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents, in reply to the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the quantum of punishment, has submitted that it is evident from record that there is enough evidence on the basis of which charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner and his scuffle with Constable Uma Shankar Yadav, resulting into fracture in his hand, had been found proved, therefore, the petitioner being member of a disciplined force, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner is absolutely proportionate to the charge levelled against him and further any prudent person would have reached to the same conclusion and would have awarded the same punishment i.e. removal of petitioner from service.

22. Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has argued that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since charge levelled against the petitioner 8 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 includes a cognizable offence, therefore, as per provisions made in Para 486 (1) of the Police Regulations, First Information Report must have been registered and only after conclusion of the trial, disciplinary proceedings could have initiated, is absolutely misconceived, as provisions made in Para 486 of the Police Regulations are obsolete as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of judgments had laid down the law that the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously, as their nature and result are altogether different.

23. Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has thus concluded her arguments and has submitted that there is no flaw in the inquiry conducted in the matter of the petitioner and the punishment imposed against him is conmmensurate with the charges levelled against him. She further submits that there is neither any infirmity nor any illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1998 (Bipin Kumar Thakur Versus State of U.P. and others), therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

24. We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that though petitioner on the date of incident was on sanctioned leave but he, after consuming alcohol, entered in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli and scuffled with Constable Uma Shankar Yadav in intoxicated condition and caused him serious injury, therefore, it cannot be said that since he was on leave on that particularly date, as such, his conduct cannot be termed as misconduct as he was a Constable of 35th Battalion P.A.C., Lucknow and the incident took place in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli.

25. It is apparent from bare reading of the inquiry report that statements of the witnesses have been recorded in detail and petitioner had cross- examined them at length. The Inquiry Officer, after considering entire evidence available on record, had made recommendation for the punishment of removal of petitioner from service, which is strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Appendix-1 of the Rules of 9 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008

26. We are of the opinion that there is no procedural flaw in the inquiry conducted in the matter of petitioner. We are further of the view that the endorsement made by the disciplinary authority on the inquiry report that he agreed with the recommendation regarding punishment, does not make much difference, as after issuance of show cause notice, petitioner has submitted detailed reply and the disciplinary authority had considered each and every point raised in the said reply and thereafter, had passed punishment order imposing punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. The charge levelled against the petitioner, in respect of consumption of alcohol and causing injury to one Constable Uma Shankar Yadav in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C. Raebareli in absolutely intoxicated condition, is a very serious charge. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of the medical report given by the doctor and on the basis of the statement of the witnesses, had found the aforesaid charge proved. It is worthwhile to consider that the petitioner was a Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary, which is a disciplined force of the State of U.P., therefore, it was obligatory on the petitioner to maintain the standards of discipline but conduct of the petitioner is such that he has not only caused injury to Constable Uma Shankar Yadav in intoxicated condition but has also tarnished the image of disciplined force, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the nature of charge, which has found proved against the petitioner, is such that it cannot be said that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the punishment order on the ground of quantum of punishment.

27. The petitioner, in support of his arguments regarding punishment disproportionate to the gravity of charge, has relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Tewari (supra) and Girwar Singh Tomar (supra) but they cannot be helpful to the petitioner, as in the present case charge, which has been found proved against the petitioner, is very serious in nature and therefore, in our considered view the punishment of removal from service is neither shocking nor disproportionate to the charge. 10 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008

28. Much emphasis has been put by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for ascertaining, as to whether any person has consumed alcohol, pathological test of urine and blood is necessary and in the case of petitioner doctor without conducting the said tests, only by physical appearance has given his medical report. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the aforesaid is not at all, justified as consumption of alcohol in fact had been admitted by the petitioner as he before the Inquiry Officer has categorically stated that he had taken certain medicines on the advice of a doctor at Lucknow, which may contain alcohol. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has not denied in absolute terms that at the time of incident, no alcohol was present in his body. Though he tried to justify presence of alcohol in his body by saying that he had taken certain medicines on the advice of the doctor but neither he could spell out the name of the said doctor nor he could produce any prescription of medicines given by the doctor and he also could not spell out the names of the medicines, meaning thereby in fact he had admitted regarding consumption of alcohol. It is also of utmost relevance to consider that not only the doctor has given report regarding consumption of alcohol by the petitioner, there are many witnesses who have categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and at the time of incident was in an intoxicated condition.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions regarding necessity of pathological tests of blood and urine for ascertaining the consumption of alcohol, has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Munna Lal (supra) and judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Jai Mangal Ram (supra) but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid judgments is not applicable, as in the present case, the petitioner did not deny the consumption of alcohol by him, rather he came up with the case that he had consumed medicines having alcohol on the advice of a doctor at Lucknow and once in the inquiry, he could not spell out name of the doctor, the names of the medicines and he could not produce the medical prescription of the doctor then indirectly, in fact, he admitted that he had 11 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 consumed alcohol and at the time of incident, he was in an intoxicated condition.

30. We are of the view that once the petitioner in his reply submitted before the Inquiry Officer has stated that alcohol found in his body, was due to medicines, which he had taken on the advice of a doctor at Lucknow and he could not spell out name of the doctor, names of the medicines and he could not produce the medical prescription, then it is apparent that the consumption of alcohol had been admitted by the petitioner as he could not prove before the Inquiry Officer that the said alcohol was out of any medicine taken by him. Once the consumption of alcohol was admitted, even if the pathological tests i.e. blood test and urine test of the petitioner have not taken place and doctor had given medical report only on the basis of physical appearance, that does not make any difference as the petitioner himself has admitted consumption of alcohol.

31. The other ground taken by the petitioner in his defence is that since charge against him is that he had caused serious injury to Constable Uma Shankar Yadav, therefore, in view of provisions made in Para 486 of the Police Regulations, firstly the F.I.R. should have been registered in respect of the cognizable offence and only after investigation and trial of the said offence, disciplinary proceedings could have been instituted and concluded against the petitioner but without registering any F.I.R., straight away disciplinary proceedings were instituted, therefore, the entire exercise is contrary to the provisions made in Para 486 of the Police Regulations. The aforesaid ground taken by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived as provisions made in Para 486 of the Police Regulations are of pre-independence era and since then much water has flown down the river and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of judgments had categorically laid down the law that in respect of any charge, criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously, as nature of both the proceedings and their final outcome are altogether different.

32. We are of the view that merely because F.I.R. was not lodged in the matter that by itself cannot be a ground to nullify the full-fledged 12 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 disciplinary proceedings, which apparently are flawless and the charge which had been found proved against the petitioner is serious in nature.

33. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal after considering each and every point raised in the claim petition, had dismissed it by a well reasoned order.

34. In view of aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1998 (Bipin Kumar Thakur Versus State of U.P. and others).

35. Accordingly, this writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. December 8, 2025 Satish (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

which resulted in a scuffle between them and petitioner pushed Mr. Uma Shankar Yadav, which resulted in fracture in his hand. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 19.12.1997 and thereafter, inquiry was conducted by recording statements of the witnesses and their cross- examination by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 04.02.1998, whereby he made a recommendation for removal of the petitioner from service. The disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner alongwith copy of the inquiry report on 04.02.1998. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 18.02.1998.

5. The disciplinary authority, after considering reply of the petitioner and the entire material available on record, passed the order dated 22.02.1998, whereby he imposed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under U.P. Police Officers of the Sub-ordinate Rank (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1991') and the said appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.06.1998.

6. The petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and appellate order dated 19.06.1998 by filing Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1998 before learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, has dismissed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated

22.11.2007. 3 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 22.11.2007, punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and the appellate order dated

19.06.1998.

8. Shri Manish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is admitted fact between the parties that on the date of alleged incident, petitioner was on leave and therefore, the alleged act of the petitioner cannot be termed as misconduct. It has further been submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not comply with the procedure of inquiry contemplated under the Rules of 1991, as statements of the witnesses were recorded in absence of the petitioner and further he was not permitted to cross-examine the witness, therefore, the inquiry itself stands vitiated and consequently the punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and the appellate order dated 19.06.1998 are unsustainable.

9. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that main charge against him is that he consumed alcohol and in intoxicated condition scuffled with Constable, Uma Shankar Yadav in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli but without pathological examination of the blood and urine of the petitioner, doctor on the basis of physical appearance of the petitioner had given a report mentioning therein that the petitioner was in intoxicated condition and further during inquiry the said doctor was not produced as a witness to prove his report, as such, it is patently manifest that the main charge has not been proved in a proper manner. It has further been argued that the petitioner, in reply to the charge-sheet and his statement before the Inquiry Officer, had categorically submitted that he was ill and therefore, under the advice of a doctor at Lucknow, he had taken certain medicines on the date of incident and the said medicines may have had alcohol, as such, it was obligatory on the part of the Inquiry Officer to call upon the doctor and examine him in respect of the charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner and only thereafter, the said charge could have been proved, whereas in the case at hand, without calling doctor in the inquiry and without proving the report of the doctor, straight away Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report had recorded finding that the charge of consumption of alcohol and petitioner being in intoxicated condition at the time of incident, has been found proved. 4 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in respect of the charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Munna Lal Versus Union of India, 2010 (15) SCC 399 and judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Jai Mangal Ram Versus State of U.P. and others, 2024 (1) A.D.J. 219, and has submitted that the charge of consumption of alcohol cannot be proved unless pathological test of the blood and Urine of the government servant concerned is carried out.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges levelled against him and is shockingly disproportionate, as the incident in question is a simple scuffle between the petitioner and Constable Uma Shankar Yadav and due to said scuffle, Constable Uma Shankar Yadav fell down on the ground which resulted in fracture of a bone of his hand, therefore, even in the event of entire charge having been found proved, no prudent person could have awarded punishment of removal of service, as such the punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress his arguments in respect of the quantum of punishment has relied on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Tewari Versus Union of India, 2013 (6) S.C.C. 602 and Girwar Singh Tomar versus Union of India, 2007 (3) A.W.C. 2773.

13. It has also been argued that the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report has made recommendation for the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service and the disciplinary authority on the inquiry report had made endorsement that he agree with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, therefore, it is apparent that the disciplinary authority before issuing a show cause notice had already made up his mind to remove the petitioner from service.

14. Shri Manish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that it is apparent from the record that the allegations levelled regarding incident in question also involve a cognizable offence, 5 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 therefore, as per provisions made in Para 486 (1) of the Police Regulations, firstly, a report of the cognizable offence must have been registered in the Police Station concerned and only after the investigation and conclusion of trial, the departmental proceedings could have been initiated, whereas in the present case, the provisions made in Para 486 (1) of the Police Regulations have not been taken into consideration at all and without registering the report of the cognizable offence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he has been awarded with the punishment of removal from service.

15. Shri Manish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1998 (Bipin Kumar Thakur Versus State of U.P. and others), vide judgment and order dated

22.11.2007, has not considered the aforesaid arguments in correct prespective and therefore, the order of learned Tribunal unsustainable and further, the punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and appellate order dated 19.06.1998 are also unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid arguments, writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed and the punishment order dated 22.02.1998 and the appellate order dated 19.06.1998 are liable to be quashed by this Court.

16. Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has argued that the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.), which is a disciplined force and it was obligatory on the petitioner to maintain high standards of discipline of the said force but he, after consuming alcohol, entered in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli and in intoxicated condition scuffled with Constable Uma Shankar Yadav and pushed him on the earth, which resulted in a fracture in his hand thus, it is apparent that the petitioner has not only caused injury to Constable Uma Shankar Yadav but by consuming alcohol and having scuffle inside the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli has in fact dented the image and reputation of the disciplined force, therefore, after completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority, after considering each and every material available on record, had passed the order of 6 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 punishment, whereby petitioner had been removed from service.

17. It has been argued that after scuffle between the petitioner and Constable Uma Shankar Yadav, petitioner was presented before the doctor who on his examination had given a report, wherein, he had categorically mentioned that petitioner had consumed alcohol and was in intoxicated condition. The doctor's report was made part of the charge- sheet and was relied on in the inquiry and on that basis coupled with the evidence of other witnesses, the Inquiry Officer found the charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner and he having been found in intoxicated condition, proved. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the report given by the doctor was part of the charge-sheet and since petitioner in his reply did not raise any doubt about the genuineness of the said report, it was not obligatory for the Inquiry Officer to call upon the doctor to prove the said report and further if the petitioner was of the view that doctor should come and prove the said report, then the petitioner should have demanded from the Inquiry Officer that the doctor may be summoned but the petitioner did not raise such demand.

18. It has further been submitted that the petitioner himself has indirectly admitted in the inquiry that he had consumed alcohol, as he has stated that he had taken certain medicines on the advise of a doctor at Lucknow, which may contain alcohol and since during inquiry, he neither disclosed name of the doctor nor he produced any prescription issued by the doctor to show what medicines were prescribed to him and therefore, the Inquiry Officer, while considering the entire material available on record i.e. report given by the doctor, statements of the witnesses coupled with the fact that the petitioner could not disclose the name of doctor and also could not produce the prescription issued by the doctor prescribing him medicine containing alcohol, had found the charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner and he being in intoxicated condition at the time of incident, proved.

19. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that from bare perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, it is apparent that the detailed evidence of the witnesses had been recorded and petitioner 7 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 had also cross-examined them, therefore, it is apparent that the inquiry in the matter of petitioner has been conduced strictly in accordance with the provisions made in the Rules of 1991. It has further been argued that in Appendix-1 of the Rules of 1991, it is provided that the Inquiry Officer may also give his recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer and therefore, the Inquiry Officer in the present matter had made recommendation for punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on the Inquiry Officer had made endorsement that he agree with the punishment recommended by the disciplinary authority and thereafter he had issued a show cause notice alongwith the copy of the inquiry report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had considered the reply submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notice in detail and had passed the order of punishment, which is strictly in accordance with law.

20. It has also been argued that even otherwise, the charge levelled against the petitioner was absolutely serious and that had been found proved by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the detailed evidence led in the inquiry, therefore, if at all, there was any procedural infirmity that would not be of much a relevance as petitioner nowhere has pleaded that any prejudice has been caused to him by the said procedural infirmity.

21. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents, in reply to the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the quantum of punishment, has submitted that it is evident from record that there is enough evidence on the basis of which charge of consumption of alcohol by the petitioner and his scuffle with Constable Uma Shankar Yadav, resulting into fracture in his hand, had been found proved, therefore, the petitioner being member of a disciplined force, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner is absolutely proportionate to the charge levelled against him and further any prudent person would have reached to the same conclusion and would have awarded the same punishment i.e. removal of petitioner from service.

22. Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has argued that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since charge levelled against the petitioner 8 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 includes a cognizable offence, therefore, as per provisions made in Para 486 (1) of the Police Regulations, First Information Report must have been registered and only after conclusion of the trial, disciplinary proceedings could have initiated, is absolutely misconceived, as provisions made in Para 486 of the Police Regulations are obsolete as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of judgments had laid down the law that the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously, as their nature and result are altogether different.

23. Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has thus concluded her arguments and has submitted that there is no flaw in the inquiry conducted in the matter of the petitioner and the punishment imposed against him is conmmensurate with the charges levelled against him. She further submits that there is neither any infirmity nor any illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1998 (Bipin Kumar Thakur Versus State of U.P. and others), therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

24. We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that though petitioner on the date of incident was on sanctioned leave but he, after consuming alcohol, entered in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli and scuffled with Constable Uma Shankar Yadav in intoxicated condition and caused him serious injury, therefore, it cannot be said that since he was on leave on that particularly date, as such, his conduct cannot be termed as misconduct as he was a Constable of 35th Battalion P.A.C., Lucknow and the incident took place in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C., Raebareli.

25. It is apparent from bare reading of the inquiry report that statements of the witnesses have been recorded in detail and petitioner had cross- examined them at length. The Inquiry Officer, after considering entire evidence available on record, had made recommendation for the punishment of removal of petitioner from service, which is strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Appendix-1 of the Rules of 9 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008

26. We are of the opinion that there is no procedural flaw in the inquiry conducted in the matter of petitioner. We are further of the view that the endorsement made by the disciplinary authority on the inquiry report that he agreed with the recommendation regarding punishment, does not make much difference, as after issuance of show cause notice, petitioner has submitted detailed reply and the disciplinary authority had considered each and every point raised in the said reply and thereafter, had passed punishment order imposing punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. The charge levelled against the petitioner, in respect of consumption of alcohol and causing injury to one Constable Uma Shankar Yadav in the premises of 25th Battalion P.A.C. Raebareli in absolutely intoxicated condition, is a very serious charge. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of the medical report given by the doctor and on the basis of the statement of the witnesses, had found the aforesaid charge proved. It is worthwhile to consider that the petitioner was a Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary, which is a disciplined force of the State of U.P., therefore, it was obligatory on the petitioner to maintain the standards of discipline but conduct of the petitioner is such that he has not only caused injury to Constable Uma Shankar Yadav in intoxicated condition but has also tarnished the image of disciplined force, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the nature of charge, which has found proved against the petitioner, is such that it cannot be said that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the punishment order on the ground of quantum of punishment.

27. The petitioner, in support of his arguments regarding punishment disproportionate to the gravity of charge, has relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Tewari (supra) and Girwar Singh Tomar (supra) but they cannot be helpful to the petitioner, as in the present case charge, which has been found proved against the petitioner, is very serious in nature and therefore, in our considered view the punishment of removal from service is neither shocking nor disproportionate to the charge. 10 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008

28. Much emphasis has been put by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for ascertaining, as to whether any person has consumed alcohol, pathological test of urine and blood is necessary and in the case of petitioner doctor without conducting the said tests, only by physical appearance has given his medical report. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the aforesaid is not at all, justified as consumption of alcohol in fact had been admitted by the petitioner as he before the Inquiry Officer has categorically stated that he had taken certain medicines on the advice of a doctor at Lucknow, which may contain alcohol. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has not denied in absolute terms that at the time of incident, no alcohol was present in his body. Though he tried to justify presence of alcohol in his body by saying that he had taken certain medicines on the advice of the doctor but neither he could spell out the name of the said doctor nor he could produce any prescription of medicines given by the doctor and he also could not spell out the names of the medicines, meaning thereby in fact he had admitted regarding consumption of alcohol. It is also of utmost relevance to consider that not only the doctor has given report regarding consumption of alcohol by the petitioner, there are many witnesses who have categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and at the time of incident was in an intoxicated condition.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions regarding necessity of pathological tests of blood and urine for ascertaining the consumption of alcohol, has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Munna Lal (supra) and judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Jai Mangal Ram (supra) but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid judgments is not applicable, as in the present case, the petitioner did not deny the consumption of alcohol by him, rather he came up with the case that he had consumed medicines having alcohol on the advice of a doctor at Lucknow and once in the inquiry, he could not spell out name of the doctor, the names of the medicines and he could not produce the medical prescription of the doctor then indirectly, in fact, he admitted that he had 11 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 consumed alcohol and at the time of incident, he was in an intoxicated condition.

30. We are of the view that once the petitioner in his reply submitted before the Inquiry Officer has stated that alcohol found in his body, was due to medicines, which he had taken on the advice of a doctor at Lucknow and he could not spell out name of the doctor, names of the medicines and he could not produce the medical prescription, then it is apparent that the consumption of alcohol had been admitted by the petitioner as he could not prove before the Inquiry Officer that the said alcohol was out of any medicine taken by him. Once the consumption of alcohol was admitted, even if the pathological tests i.e. blood test and urine test of the petitioner have not taken place and doctor had given medical report only on the basis of physical appearance, that does not make any difference as the petitioner himself has admitted consumption of alcohol.

31. The other ground taken by the petitioner in his defence is that since charge against him is that he had caused serious injury to Constable Uma Shankar Yadav, therefore, in view of provisions made in Para 486 of the Police Regulations, firstly the F.I.R. should have been registered in respect of the cognizable offence and only after investigation and trial of the said offence, disciplinary proceedings could have been instituted and concluded against the petitioner but without registering any F.I.R., straight away disciplinary proceedings were instituted, therefore, the entire exercise is contrary to the provisions made in Para 486 of the Police Regulations. The aforesaid ground taken by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived as provisions made in Para 486 of the Police Regulations are of pre-independence era and since then much water has flown down the river and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of judgments had categorically laid down the law that in respect of any charge, criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously, as nature of both the proceedings and their final outcome are altogether different.

32. We are of the view that merely because F.I.R. was not lodged in the matter that by itself cannot be a ground to nullify the full-fledged 12 WRIA No. 2000682 of 2008 disciplinary proceedings, which apparently are flawless and the charge which had been found proved against the petitioner is serious in nature.

33. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal after considering each and every point raised in the claim petition, had dismissed it by a well reasoned order.

34. In view of aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1497 of 1998 (Bipin Kumar Thakur Versus State of U.P. and others).

35. Accordingly, this writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. December 8, 2025 Satish (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench