I.S Tiwana, J.:— The petitioner who was employed as a Constable in the Police Force of the State of Punjab impugns the order of his dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore, on 16th June, (Annexure P. 6) and its affirmance by the Dy. Inspector-General of Police and th??? Inspector-General of Police on appeal and revision, ???ide orders dated 22nd August, 1975 (Annexure P. 8) and 20th December, (Annexure P. 10), respectively. The charge of which he has been held guilty was that on a surprise roll-call of the officials of the police lines Ferozepore on 5th February, 1975 at 9.46 p.m, he was found drunk and when the Line Officer Sub-Inspector Major Singh thought of taking him to the hospital for his medical examination after making an entry to that effect vide report No. 49 dated 5th February, 1975, the petitioner slipped away from his presence and, thus, could not be subjected to medical examination. It is, however, admitted ???hat he reported himself for duty at about 1 a.m in the Police Lines and made a report to that effect vide report No. 57, dated 6th February, 1975. It was on account of the establishment of this charge that the Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore vide his impugned order annexure P. 6 awarded him the penalty of dismissal.
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two-fold: firstly, that even if it is accepted for argument's sake that the ??? petitioner was under the influence of liquor at the given point of ti???e the same did not amount to any misconduct and, secondly, that the impugned orders are completely violative of the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as it then existed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I find that the petitioner deserves to succeed on the basis of the above-noted contentions.
3. So far as the first claim of the petitioner is concerned I have already taken the view in Rattan Lal v. The State of Ho???ora, 1983 (2) S.L.R 159 that a Co???stable ???hile rot on duty, even if fo???r.d to ???e under the influence of liquor, cannot be held to have in iscorducted himself on that score alone and it does not render him liable for any disciplinary action.
4. The second limb of the charge against the petitioner—if it can be said to be a charge—was that he had slipped away from the presence of the Lines Officer and did not subject himself to medical examination.(The defence of the petitioner all through was that he had returned to the Police Lines at about 1 A.M after seeing a movie and since S.I Major Singh was annoyed with him on account of his failure to serve him in certain manner, this false case had been concocted against him).
5. Be that as it may, I am of the view that even if this charge is said to have been established against the petitioner, still the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the light of the provisions of Rule 16.2 as it then was. The relevant part of this Rule reads as follows:—
“16.2(1). Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for Police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.”
6. The orders of the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector-General of Police, Annexure P. 6 and P. 10, respectively do not disclose that those officers were even conscious of (he existe???ce of this Rule. These orders are completely silent so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. The Deputy Inspector-General has, however, made this mention in this impugned order Annexure P. 8 the present single act of the appellant is of gravest nature and his case in no way deserves leniency. This observation has been made by the Deputy Inspector (G???neral in the context of the service record of the petitioner on the basis of which it was pointed out to him that the petitioner had by that time rendered nine years' unblemished service and had done commendable work during the Indo-Pak War of 1971. But even this observation or the consideration by the Deputy Inspector General of Police falls far short of the requirements of sub-rule (1) i of Rule 16. 2 ibid. It has nowhere been recorded by any of the authorities concerned that the petitioner was guilty of such ‘gravest’ acts of misconduct, the cumulative effect of which can go to prove incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In the absence of such a finding the respondent authorities could not resort to the punishment of dismissal on the basis of the charge established against the petitioner. It is beyond dispute that the provisions Rule 16.2 are mandatory in nature and.any order in violation of the same has necessarily to be set aside. (See Guriev Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1976 (2) S.L.R 442 and Civil Writ Petition No. 3037 of 1977, Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana etc. decided on 16-11-1977 (D.B).
7. In the light of the above I allow this petition and set aside the impu???ed orders, Annexure P. 6, P. 8 and P. 10. It-is hardly necessary for me to mention that as a result of this conclusion of mine the petitioner is also ???eld entitled to all the consequential reliefs which flow from the passing of this judgment. No costs.
8. Petition allowed.