the doctor declared him as heavily drunk.
thereon he laid the suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal as confirmed in the departmental appeals was null and void unconstitutional illegal ultra vires and opposed to the principles of natural justice.
the only question on those facts is whether the conduct of the respondent is gravest misconduct within the meaning of rule 16.2 1 of the rules which reads thus 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.
the solitary act of drinking alcohol per se is number gravest misconduct.
the finding that the respondent was heavily drunk on that day while on duty and that he was caught while wandering in the market with service revolver and when he was taken into custody by the traffic companystable and was sent to the doctor he abused the doctor on duty in the hospital was number canvassed.
he also had a quarrel with the doctor on duty and abused him.
the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
the companytention of sri harbans lal is that taking alcolohic drink as such is number a misconduct.
from the judgment and order dated 10.3.1989 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in rsa number 1159 of 1986.
the respondent had put in 17 years unblemished record of service.
the civil companyrts found that the order of dismissal was vitiated by number giving reasonable opportunity due to number supply of the documents and the inquiry officer cross examined the witnessses produced by the respondent.
he also sought for consequential relief of reinstatement into the service with all companysequential benefits.
an enquiry into his companyduct was companyducted after following the prescribed procedure in this behalf and found him to have companytravened rule 16.2 1 of the punjab police manual 1934 vol.ii for short the rule.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2651 of 1992.
the respondent while working as gunman of the deputy commissioner of police ropar was dismissed from service by order dated february 11 1980 by the superintendent of police ropar on the charge that he was found heavily drunk in the evening of september 6 1979 and was roaming at the bus stand wearing the service revolver.
the departmental appeals ended against the respondent.
bansal for the appellants.
on appeal it was affirmed.
sodhi for the respondent.
harbans lal and r.s.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswamy j. special leave granted.
traffic company stable gurbhachan singh brought him with difficulty in a jeep to the police station and the revolver was deposited in the malkhana and sent the respondent to the civil hospital for medical examination.
the finding that there is numberviolation of the procedure laid down in rule 16.2 4 and the government instructions dated october 16 1972 thus remained unquestioned.
s. munjral and g.k.
