S.S. Sudhalkar, J.@mdashThe petitioner was working in the Haryana Police Force as a Head Constable. He was sent for refresher course at
Kala Teetar when the incident in question took place. He was called for special roll call at 10.30 p.m. on 26.1.1985. It is alleged that he was
found under the influence of liquor and uttered flighty words against the officers. He was found to have consumed alcohol. Enquiry was held against
him and the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 6.6.1985 i.e. from the date of passing of order Annexure P/3 was imposed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not on duty at the time when the incident took place. He also argued that
the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges alleged against him.
3. So far as the charge of being found under the influence of liquor is concerned, it is not shown that the petitioner had consumed liquor in the
barrack or in the official premises. The petitioner was on training and it is nobody''s case that he was on actual duty when the roll call was made. It
was a special roll call. It is also nobody''s case that the petitioner was confined only to the barrack and could not go out. Therefore, the fact that he
could have consumed liquor outside also cannot be ruled out.
4. Now the question is whether he was under the influence of liquor. The medical examination did prove that the petitioner had consumed liquor.
However, that by itself does not show that he was under the influence of liquor.
5. Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the uttering of filthy words against the officers itself go to show that the petitioner was under
the influence of liquor. This cannot be accepted. It was special roll call at 10.30 p.m. At that time a man may be under the influence of sleep also
when the roll call was made. There is no evidence before me to show that the percentage of liquor was such or the behaviour for the petitioner was
such that he Could be treated under the influence of liquor.
6. The next question is regarding using of filthy words against the officers. The petitioner was police Head Constable and belonged to a disciplined
force. He cannot be expected to use filthy words against the officers even though he may be under the influence of sleep. The behaviour of the
petitioner cannot be said to be in any way in conformity with the duties and responsibility he carried as a Head Constable. He did not defeat (befit
?) his position as a Head Constable. There is nothing on record from which this finding against the petitioner can be assailed. Moreover this Court
is not sitting in appeal to re-examine the evidence. Therefore, the finding of uttering filthy words against the officers is said to have been established
against the petitioner.
7. The question now remains to be considered is whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate to the charge of his
misbehaviour. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the punishment awarded to him was disproportionate. Counsel for the respondents relied on
the case of Bhagwat Parshad Vs. Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Others, . The petitioner in that case was found under the influence of
drink and was noisy and did not desist even when told to do so by Foot Constable Kuldip Raj. Tt has been held by this Court in that case that the
behaviour of the petitioner in that case was such that required the imposition of punishment of dismissal.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Ors., JT 1995(7) S.C. 43 : 1995(4) SCT 657
(SC). It has been held in that case that when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in
which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of the abusive language. No strait-jacket formula could
be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. It is further held in that case
that the each case has to be considered on its own facts.
9. In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, I also found that the present case should be decided on its own facts. It is of course not
on the record as to what were the exact words which amounted to misbehaviour used against the officers. In the absence of the same, gravity of
the same cannot be ascertained. Therefore, I find that the punishment of dismissal can be termed in this case of disproportionate to the misdeeds of
the petitioner. In the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), the punishment of dismissal was set aside and imposition of stoppage
of two increments with cumulative effect was ordered. In this case counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that such a small punishment may
not be ordered in this case and suggested that little lighter punishment to the punishment of dismissal of service is compulsory retirement and the
petitioner may be compulsorily retired from the date of dismissal of service. I find that the suggestion given by learned counsel for the petitioner is
proper.
10. As a result, this petition is partly allowed. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is substituted by that of compulsory retirement from the
service from the date of awarding of punishment of dismissal. It is clarified that this judgment has been delivered in the light of the facts of the
present case, and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). Consequently it
shall not be used as a precedent.
11. Petition partly allowed.