Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi vs Sanya Sahayak

Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi vs Sanya Sahayak - Supreme Court Case / Judgment 2022

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7382 OF 2021
Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) Thr. LRs. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Sanya Sahayak and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 35483 of 2002 by which the High Court
has dismissed the said writ petition refusing to set aside the order of
dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the employee (now the
heirs of the deceased employee) has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the employee Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (since deceased) was
a driver posted at the 12th Battalion, P.A.C. at Fatehpur. While he was
on duty driving a truck carrying the P.A.C. personnel from Fatehpur to
Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty, it was involved in a motor accident with
a jeep. He was charged for having caused the accident by dashing his
truck on the back side of the jeep while driving under the influence of
alcohol. On medical examination conducted on the same date, i.e.,
1
02.02.2000, he was found to have been under the influence of alcohol.
A departmental enquiry was initiated against him. On completion of the
departmental enquiry, Inquiry Officer proposed punishment of dismissal.
Second show-cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority and
after considering his reply thereto the punishment of dismissal was
awarded which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of punishment of
dismissal, the employee filed a writ petition before the High Court being
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 35483 of 2002. Before the High
Court, it was also submitted that punishment of dismissal is
disproportionate to the misconduct proved. By the impugned judgment
and order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and has also
held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a punishment of
dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct
committed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the employee had
preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of the proceedings
before this Court, the employee has died and thereafter his heirs were
brought on record and the present appeal is being prosecuted by the
heirs of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/s has
submitted that considering the fact that it was a minor accident, which
2
resulted into some loss to the vehicle and considering his 25 years long
service, the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct
proved. It is, therefore, requested to take the lenient view and to convert
the dismissal into compulsory retirement.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/s has
submitted that the aspect of disproportionate punishment imposed has
been considered by the High Court in detail and having considered the
past record and the misconduct committed by the deceased employee in
the past and having found that he was a habitual consumer of liquor and
he was remaining absent and even in the year 1987, when he was
appointed in the 33rd Battalion in P.A.C. Jhansi, he misbehaved with the
senior officers and was punished with one parininda lekh, the award of
punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate.
6. It is submitted that driving the vehicle carrying the soldiers under
the influence of alcohol cannot be tolerated and it can be said to be
gross indiscipline. It is submitted that it was fortunate that nobody died
in the accident because of the good luck of those soldiers, who were
travelling in the vehicle. It is submitted that accident could have been
fatal if somebody had died. It is submitted that driving a vehicle under
the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also.
It is therefore submitted that the deceased employee is not entitled to
any leniency.
3
7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the disciplinary
proceedings, the misconduct of driving the vehicle under the influence of
the alcohol and when the employee was driving the vehicle under the
influence of alcohol the vehicle met with an accident has been held to be
proved and therefore the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment
of dismissal. The only prayer on behalf of the appellant/s is that the
punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct proved
and leniency may be shown and the order of dismissal be converted into
compulsory retirement.
9. However, it is required to be noted that the employee was the
driver posted in the Military and he was posted at the 12th Battalion,
P.A.C. at Fatehpur. The allegation against the employee is at the time
when the employee was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor,
the truck/vehicle was carrying P.A.C. personnel and the said
vehicle/truck met with an accident with a jeep. His defence that due to
the break failure, the accident took place and the truck dashed to the
backside of the jeep has been disbelieved. The fact that he was driving
the truck under the influence of alcohol has been established and
proved, even on the medical examination conducted on the same date.
Driving a truck carrying the P.A.C. personnel under the influence of
4
alcohol is a very serious misconduct and such an indiscipline cannot be
tolerated and that too in the disciplined Military.
10. Merely because there was no major loss and it was a minor
accident cannot be a ground to show leniency. It was sheer good luck
that the accident was not a fatal accident. It could have been a fatal
accident. When the employee was driving a truck carrying the P.A.C.
personnel, the lives of those P.A.C. personnel who were travelling in the
truck were in the hands of the driver. Therefore, it can be said that he
played with the lives of those P.A.C. personnel, who were on duty and
travelling from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty.
11. Even otherwise, driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is
not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. Nobody can be permitted
to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Such a misconduct of
driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and playing with the life
of the others is a very serious misconduct. There are also other
misconducts earlier committed by the employee.
12. However, at the same time, considering the statement of the
employee at the time of the enquiry and the explanation given by him
that on going to duty on taking the vehicle from battalion, he had not
consumed the liquor and after the accident with the objective to
suppress the fear on coming to battalion and on parking the vehicle, he
went directly to bus terminal, Ghazipur and consumed 100 ml of country
5
made wine, though has not been accepted but that might be plausible
and considering his 25 years of long service and fortunately it was a
minor accident which resulted into some loss to the vehicle and
considering the fact that the employee has since died, we find that the
punishment of dismissal can be said to be too harsh and may be treated
one for compulsory retirement.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove and in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove,
the award of punishment of dismissal can be said to be too harsh, the
punishment of dismissal is directed to be converted into compulsory
retirement of the employee. As the employee has since died, and on
converting the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement,
death-cum-retirement benefits as also the benefit of family pension, if
any, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee in
accordance with law and bearing in mind that punishment of dismissal
has now been converted into one of compulsory retirement. The present
appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.

………………………………….J.
 [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
JANUARY 25, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
6

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

Comments

  1. I am heartily thankful to you that you have shared this best information with us. I got some different kind of knowledge from your web page, and it is really helpful for everyone. Thanks once again for share it. Same Deutz Fahr Tractor

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for providing the judgement. I was looking for it.
    Mahindra Supro T2 Mileage

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the way you express the topic. All the things are clearly explained in a nice way. Thanks for the blog.
    Tata 1512

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर