Jodhpur:<\/strong> The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the removal from service of CRPF Constable Umed Singh, holding that the charge of being under the influence of alcohol and misbehaving with superior officers was not established through reliable evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Kuldeep Mathur noted that key witnesses had not seen Singh consuming alcohol, while the medical report only stated that he \u201cseems to be under the influence\u201d and was not supported by any blood, urine or breath test. The Court therefore found the intoxication charge unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held that the charge of unauthorized absence was only partially proved. Singh had cited his mother\u2019s illness and produced supporting documents. Relying on the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that unauthorized absence does not by itself constitute misconduct unless it is shown to be wilful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Considering Singh\u2019s nearly 10 years of service and absence of any history of habitual absence or similar punishment, the High Court found removal from service disproportionate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court quashed the removal order and subsequent departmental orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on penalty, making it clear that the fresh punishment cannot be removal, dismissal or termination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exercise is to be completed preferably within three months.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" No Blood, Urine or Breath Test Conducted; HC Says Unauthorized Absence Alone Is Not Misconduct Unless Wilful Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the removal from service of CRPF Constable Umed Singh, holding that the charge of being under the influence of alcohol and misbehaving with superior officers was not established through reliable … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":8841,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9508"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9508\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9509,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9508\/revisions\/9509"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8841"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}No Scientific Test to Prove Intoxication<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Unauthorized Absence Not Proved as Wilful<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Ten Years of Service: Removal Held Disproportionate<\/h3>\n\n\n\n