Samar Bahadur Singh
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
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
Back
Pages: 1 2
