Munna Lal
Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2009] INSC 1617 (29 September 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6510 OF 2009 (@Special Leave Petition
(C) No.12018 of 2006) MUNNA LAL ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS
O R D E R
1.
Leave granted.
Heard both
sides.
The
appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police working in the Indira Gandhi
International Airport, New Delhi. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against him in the year 2005 alleging that the appellant was found in a drunken
condition while on shift duty from 0700 hrs. to 1300 hrs. at the Indian
Airlines Cargo gate.
The
immediate superior officer of the appellant, on reaching the office, felt smell
of alcohol and suspected that the appellant must have been in a drunken
condition. The Assistant Commandant ordered to take the appellant to the
airport dispensary for medical check- up. The doctor on duty examined him and
stated that the appellant was conscious though incoherent in speech, his pupil
were equal and normal, his pulse and B.P. was normal and there was an element
of doubt about alcohol and suspicion of mild smell of alcohol and for
confirmation he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital for further medical checkup.
The appellant contended that on that day, he was ill and was taking medicines
and this must have caused the smell of alcohol. An inquiry was conducted and
the Inquiry Officer relied on the incomplete report of the doctor who examined
the appellant and held that the appellant's case was a confirmed case of
intoxication and reliance was also placed on the three witnesses, who were
examined in the inquiry.
Learned
counsel for the appellant contended that there was no medical evidence to prove
that the appellant was drunken on that day and he was alcoholic and he was also
not taken to Safdarjang Hospital as suggested by the duty doctor on panel at
the Airport.
The
appellant also contended that reliance could not have been placed on the oral
evidence given by the witnesses. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the appellant was found of dereliction of duty previously also
and there were other disciplinary proceedings against the conduct of the
appellant. But in the instant case it was not proved that the appellant was
drunk on the day when he was on duty. Evidence was not satisfactory to prove
that he was found with any alcohol and he was also not taken to Safdarjang
Hospital as suggested by the first doctor. In the absence of positive evidence,
we are of the view that the charge levelled against the appellant was not
proved satisfactorily. In the absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary
authority should not have imposed such penalty. Therefore, the punishment
imposed was illegal and the appellant is entitled to be reinstated in service
and he is entitled to get 50% of the back-wages for the period he was out of
service. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service
forthwith. The appellant's service during this period would be treated for
other service benefits such as seniority, increment and pension.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
..................CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
...................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
...................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
NEW DELHI;
Back
