STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. versus PREM RAM on 15 March 2019

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

v.

PREM RAM

(Civil Appeal No.3152 of 2019)

MARCH 15, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDHEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Service Law – Dismissal – Respondent joined service asConstable – Dismissal from service for misconduct on charge ofdrunkenness and misbehavior with public – Writ petition filed bythe respondent – Relegated to the remedy of statutory appeal – Appealfiled by the respondent before Inspector General of Police, whichwas dismissed – Revision – Dismissed by the Additional DirectorGeneral of Police – Writ petition thereagainst filed by the respondent – Dismissed by Single Judge – Division Bench of the High Courtallowed the appeal by the respondent directing that the dismissalbe converted to compulsory retirement – Held: Having regard tothe seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that therespondent was a member of the police service, no justification forthe High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal – Single Judgejustified in dismissing the writ petition – Order of the Single Judgedid not suffer from any error of fact or law – Order of the DivisionBench set aside.

Respondent joined the police service as Constable. He wasdismissed from the service for misconduct on charge ofdrunkenness and misbehavior with public. Writ petition filed bythe respondent. High Court relegated him to the remedy ofstatutory appeal. Appeal filed by the respondent before theInspector General of Police, was dismissed. Revision wasdismissed by the Additional Director General of Police. Writpetition filed by the respondent challenging the said order, wasdismissed by Single Judge of the High Court. Division Benchallowed the appeal by the respondent, directing that the dismissalof the respondent be converted to compulsory retirement. Hence,the present appeal.

495

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAllowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The charge against the respondent was of aserious act of misconduct involving drunkenness and misbehaviorwith the public. The fact of intoxication was duly proved in themedical report. Having regard to the seriousness of the chargeBof misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member ofthe police service, no justification is found for the High Court tointerfere with the order of dismissal. The single Judge wasjustified in dismissing the writ petition. The Division Bench erredin allowing the Special Appeal. The order of the Single Judge didnot suffer from any error of fact or law. The impugned judgmentCand order of the Division Bench of the High Court in SpecialAppeal is set aside, maintaining the order passed by the SingleJudge dismissing the writ petition. [Paras 7, 8] [497-F-H;498-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3152Dof 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2014 of the High Courtof Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 551 of 2014.

Saurabh Trivedi, Sunandoraha, Aviral Saxena, Advs. for theEAppellants.

S. Gowthaman, Adv. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.F1. Leave granted.

2. In 1987, the respondent joined service as a Constable and wasposted in the District of Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. While he was postedat Berinag, Uttarakhand it was alleged that he was found in an inebriatedstate on 1 November 2006 and was misbehaving with the public. HeGwas brought to the police station and was confined to the barracks. Amedical examination was done, which showed that he was under theinfluence of alcohol. A charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 24February 2007. After a disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer foundthat the charge of misconduct was substantiated. Following this, a notice H

H

to show cause was issued on 3 May 2007. The respondent submittedhis reply on 8 May 2017. On 16 May 2007, the Superintendent of Police,Pithoragarh passed an order of dismissal, holding that the charge ofdrunkenness and misbehavior had been proved. In the writ proceedingsinstituted by the respondent, on 21 April 2010, the High court disposed ofthe matter by relegating him to the remedy of a statutory appeal. Theappeal was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Kumaon Rangeon 28 August 2010 and a revision was dismissed by the Additional DirectorGeneral of Police on 19 May 2011.

3. The writ petition instituted by the respondent against the orderdated 19 May 2011 was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Courton 15 September 2014.

4. In the Special Appeal[1] instituted by the respondent, a DivisionBench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 30 October2014 allowed the appeal and directed that the dismissal from service beconverted to compulsory retirement. The Division Bench held that thepast conduct of the respondent should not have been taken intoconsideration and that since he had completed 25 years of satisfactoryservice in the police department, the punishment of dismissal seems tobe excessive.

5. The State of Uttrakhand has challenged the order of the HighCourt in the present proceedings.

6. Notice was issued by this Court on 7 July 2015. The officereport indicates that service is complete. The respondent has notappeared in these proceedings.

7. The charge against the respondent was of a serious act ofmisconduct involving drunkenness and misbehavior with the public. Thefact of intoxication was duly proved in the medical report. Having regardto the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that therespondent was a member of the police service, we find no justificationfor the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal. The learnedsingle Judge in the judgment dated 15 September 2014 was justified indismissing the writ petition. The Division Bench has erred in allowingthe Special Appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge did not sufferfrom any error of fact or law.

1Special Appeal No 551 of 2014

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

498SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A8. We hence allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgmentand order of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.551 of 2014, maintaining the order passed by the learned Single Judgedismissing the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

BDivya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H