The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with the dismissal of a police constable who was found drunk while on duty and later remained absent from service for nearly two weeks. Justice Anish Kumar Gupta dismissed the writ petition on August 4, 2026, holding that the departmental proceedings against the constable were conducted fairly and no illegality could be found in the punishment order.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sant Ram Gautam, was posted as a constable at Reserve Police Lines in Deoria. In August 2010, he was assigned NCC guard duty from the Police Lines office. According to the case records, he left his post without informing anyone and was later spotted in his police uniform, drunk, near a country liquor shop at Machchali Hatta Bazar in Deoria. He did not report back for over 12 days.
This led to a departmental inquiry. A chargesheet was issued in February 2011, and though the constable initially sought extensions to file his reply, he eventually stopped responding altogether and stayed away from the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry officer went ahead ex-parte, examined witnesses, and in December 2011 concluded that the charges against him stood proved.
A show cause notice along with the inquiry report was sent to him in January 2012. He asked for more time once, which was granted, but no reply ever came. Based on this, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on February 13, 2012. His subsequent appeal and revision were also turned down, prompting him to move the High Court.
Arguments Raised
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he wasn't given adequate opportunity and that his explanation to the show cause notice was ignored. He also claimed the inquiry officer had already recommended punishment while recording findings, which he said vitiated the process relying on earlier judgments including Jai Mangal Ram vs State of UP.
The State's counsel countered that the petitioner repeatedly failed to cooperate despite multiple opportunities, and that the reply annexed with the petition was undated and unacknowledged essentially an afterthought created after the dismissal order was already passed.
Court's Observations
Examining the record closely, the Court noted that under Rule 14(1) of Appendix I of the UP Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991, an inquiry officer is in fact empowered to recommend punishment separately from the findings on guilt.
The bench observed that the disciplinary authority had only expressed agreement with the inquiry findings not with any proposed punishment while issuing the show cause notice, which is a necessary precondition before such notices are issued.
On the alleged reply, the Court remarked that the document annexed by the petitioner bore neither a date nor any proof of submission, while the dismissal order clearly recorded that no reply was ever received.
The Court also distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that Jai Mangal Ram had not considered Rule 14(1) of the 1991 Rules and was therefore not applicable here.
Decision
Finding no procedural illegality in either the inquiry or the disciplinary action, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constable's dismissal from service.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sant Ram Gautam Constable vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy And Ors.
- Case Number: Writ - A No. 2081 of 2013
- Judge: Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.
- Decision Date: August 4, 2026
