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
