BRIJESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI (DEAD) THR. LRS. versus SANYA SAHAYAK AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 25-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 240
240
BRIJESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI (DEAD) THR. LRS.
v.
SANYA SAHAYAK AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7382 of 2021)
JANUARY 25, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service law: Armed service – Misconduct – Dismissal from
service – Appellant- employee was driver in the Military and was
posted at the 12th Battalion, P.A.C. at Fatehpur – Allegation against
him was that on the fateful day, he was driving the vehicle under
the influence of liquor when 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 brake failure, the accident took
place and the truck dashed to the backside of the jeep was
disbelieved and disciplinary authority awarded punishment of
dismissal from service – Held: The fact that he was driving the truck
under the influence of alcohol was 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 alcohol
is a very serious misconduct and such an indiscipline cannot be
tolerated and that too in the disciplined Military – However, at the
same time, in view of statement of appellant 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 made wine,
though not accepted but may be plausible and in view of his 25
years of long service and it being a minor accident which resulted
into some loss to the vehicle and the fact that the employee has
since died, the punishment of dismissal would be too harsh and is
converted into compulsory retirement.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
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. 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. [Paras 10, 11][244-B-E]
2. 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 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, the punishment of dismissal
can be said to be too harsh and may be treated one for compulsory
retirement. [Para 12][244-E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7382 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35483 of 2002.
Manohar Pratap, Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Rajesh Mani Tripathi, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advs. for the
Respondents.
BRIJESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. SANYA
SAHAYAK AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.