//
you're reading...
legal issues

whether punishment awarded to the appellant is disproportionate to the offence alleged. The appellant belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of such a force is required to maintain discipline and to act in a befitting manner in public. Instead of that, he was found under the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere with the satisfaction arrived at by the disciplinary authority that in the present case punishment of dismissal from service is called for. The punishment awarded, in our considered opinion, cannot be said to be shocking to our conscience and, therefore, the aforesaid punishment awarded does not call for any interference.

Robin Shoots with Sir Guy

Image via Wikipedia

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7643 OF 2011
 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).14722/2004)

SAMAR BAHADUR SINGH Appellant(s)

 VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)

 O R D E R

1. Delay in filing rejoinder is condoned . 

2. Leave granted. 

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 

dated 13.02.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad 

High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant 

against the judgment and order passed by the State Public 

Service Tribunal, U.P., which upheld the order of dismissal 

passed against the appellant by the respondents on 11.02.1993.

4. The appellant herein was employed as a Constable in the 

Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as 

'P.A.C.')on 15.11.1978. He was posted in IV Bn. P.A.C., 

Allahabad. On 27.10.1991, he was unauthorisedly absent from the 

Battalion Headquarter and on that day in the evening he along 

with one of his friends grabbed one bottle of liquor from the 

wine shop forcibly and also threatened them. With regard to the 

aforesaid incident, a criminal case was also registered on the 

basis of a complaint filed by the salesman of the wine shop, Sh. 

Rajan Lal. The appellant was also medically examined during the 

course of which he was found to be under the influence of 

liquor. The Doctor has opined that he had consumed alcohol, but 

was not intoxicated. 

5. The appellant was placed under suspension and a 

departmental proceeding was initiated against him. A memorandum 

of charges was issued to the appellant as against which he filed 

his reply. In the said departmental inquiry instituted against 

the appellant, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted 

the inquiry and on completion of the said inquiry, submitted his 

report finding the appellant guilty of the charges framed 

against him. 

6. Consequent upon filing of the aforesaid inquiry report, 

the Disciplinary Authority, after complying with all the 

formalities dismissed the appellant from service by issuing an 

order dated 11.02.1993. 

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an 

appeal which was considered by the Appellate Authority and by 

order dated 30.06.1993, the aforesaid appeal was dismissed. 

8. The appellant being aggrieved filed a petition before the 

tribunal which was also dismissed. Consequently, the appellant 

filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed and 

therefore, he filed the present appeal, on which we have heard 

the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before 

us that a criminal case was also instituted for the aforesaid 

incident in which he was acquitted and therefore, in the 

departmental proceeding also which was initiated he should also 

have been acquitted and the same should have been allowed to be 

ended in his favour. He further submits that in any case it has 

come in evidence that the appellant was advised to take medicine 

which he had taken and, therefore, there was some smell of 

liquor from the medicine when a medical check-up was done. 

Relying on the same, counsel submits that the entire charge is 

concocted and therefore, he is required to be held not guilty of 

the charge. The next submission of the counsel appearing for 

the appellant is that the punishment given to the appellant is 

disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. 

10. We have considered all the aforesaid submissions in the 

light of the records that are available with us. The medical 

report which is placed on record indicates that the appellant 

had consumed alcohol, but he was not intoxicated. The appellant 

was missing from the headquarters on 27.10.1991 from the morning 

and he was caught in the case registered under Section 392 

I.P.C. in the evening. The appellant wishes to make a defence 

that he was advised to take medicine but the prescription which 

is placed in the departmental proceedings does not indicate that 

any medicine was prescribed in that prescription. The appellant 

was arrested in the criminal case in connection with stealing of 

a bottle of foreign liquor and even during that time he had 

consumed alcohol prior to the incident. These facts have been 

brought out in the inquiry proceedings initiated against him in 

which the appellant did not participate. Therefore, whatever 

allegations have been brought against him, have been proved by 

placing cogent materials on record, which go unrebutted due to 

his absence in the proceedings. We also find that the appellant 

has been charged on the ground of negligence, deriliction of 

duty and consuming liquor. The aforesaid facts are found proved 

in the departmental proceedings. 

11. Acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or 

relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as the 

standard of proof in both the cases are totally different. In a 

criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case 

beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental 

proceedings, the department has to prove only preponderance of 

probabilities. In the present case, we find that the department 

has been able to prove the case on the standard of preponderance 

of probabilities. Therefore, the submissions of the counsel 

appearing for the appellant are found to be without any merit. 

12. Now, the issue is whether punishment awarded to the 

appellant is disproportionate to the offence alleged. The 

appellant belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of 

such a force is required to maintain discipline and to act in a 

befitting manner in public. Instead of that, he was found under 

the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence. 

Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere with the 

satisfaction arrived at by the disciplinary authority that in 

the present case punishment of dismissal from service is called 

for. The punishment awarded, in our considered opinion, cannot 

be said to be shocking to our conscience and, therefore, the 

aforesaid punishment awarded does not call for any interference.

13. In that view of the mater, we find no merit in this 

appeal, which is dismissed, but leaving the parties to bear 

their own costs. 

 ......................J
 (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

 ......................J
 (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 05, 2011

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,199 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: