Allahabad High Court: Siddhartha Varma, J., held that it is the bounden duty of the enquiry officer to have seen whether the charges were proved on the basis of the evidence which was led by it.
A station house officer had given information to the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner under influence of alcohol had misbehaved with the private cook Shamshad Ahmad. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended.
An enquiry report was filed as per which the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charges levied against him and a major punishment of removal was proposed under Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed, and the petitioner was removed from service.
Since the revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed, instant writ petition was filed.
High Court noted that impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
Bench added that, no individual who had seen the incident was summoned as an eyewitness to prove the incident. Also, there was only a medical report that there was a suspicion on account of the fact that there was a smell coming of alcohol from the petitioner while there was no blood report or urine report of the petitioner which actually would have proved that the petitioner had actually consumed liquor/alcohol to an extent that he was in a state of drunkenness.
Hence, the petition was allowed in view of the above. [Sangram Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 169, decided on 10-3-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishan Deo Giri
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
