Judgment:
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. While he was working an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Police Control Room, Thiruvananthapuram, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in Ext.P5 order, reverting him to the post of Head Constable for a period of three years. He appealed. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by Ext.P6. He filed a representation before the Government, which stood dismissed by Ext.P7. He filed a further review before the Government, which was also dismissed by Ext.P8. Challenging Exts.P5 to P8, the writ petition was filed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that while he was put in charge of the Police Control Room at Thiruvananthapuram, on 12.2.1997 at about 9 p.m., he left the control room without informing anyone. Later, on the next day morning at 7 a.m., he was found in an intoxicated condition at the KSRTC bus stand, Thampanoor. He was subjected to medical examination and the Doctor reported that he was under the influence of liquor. Based on that allegation, the charge memo was issued to him. He raised a plea that he was a diabetic and heart patient. He was consuming medicines. He was found in that condition at Thampanoor bus stand because of the drugs consumed by him for diabetics and heart disease. But the said explanation was not accepted, and in the enquiry, it was found that the appellant unauthorisedly left his work place, took liquor and was found in an intoxicated stage in a public place. Based on that finding, the disciplinary authority passed Ext.P5, imposing the aforementioned punishment, which stood affirmed by the other impugned orders.
3. Challenging those orders, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge took the view that the finding against the petitioner that he has committed misconduct, being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered with. The learned Single Judge also took the view that having regard to the nature of the allegation against the appellant, who is a member of the disciplined force, the punishment cannot be said to be illegal or excessive. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
4. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. We have gone through the materials on record. We notice that the Doctor who examined the appellant specifically reported that he was under the influence of liquor. A person deserting his work place, taking liquor and appearing in a disorderly manner in a public place should be dealt with strictly, especially when he is a member of the disciplined force. Further, no procedural impropriety has been brought to our notice, warranting interference with the disciplinary proceedings. We find no reason to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal.