LexSAMAR BAHADUR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 11 S.C.R. 136 SAMAR BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7643 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Se/Vice Law - Dismissal - Deparlmental proceedings - C Punishment - Proporlionality of - Appellant, a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.), was found unauthorizedly absent from the Battalion Headquarler - On the same date he also became allegedly involved in a criminal case relating to forcible grabbing of liquor bottle from D a wine shop - Appellant was acquitted in the criminal case - However, in the deparlmental proceedings initiated against the appellant, the Inquiry Officer found him guilty and consequently, Respondents dismissed him from se1Vice - Order of -dismissal upheld by appellate authority, Service E Tribunal as also High Courl- Justification of- Held: On facts, justified - Acquittal of appellant in the criminal case 11ad 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 F prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in deparlmental proceedings, the deparlment has to prove only preponderance of probabilities - In the present case, the deparlment was able to prove the case against appellant on the standard of preponderance of probabilities - A/legations G against the appellant were proved in the departmental proceedings by cogent materials on record - Appellant belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of such a force are required to maintain discipline and to act in a befitting manner in public - Instead of that, he was found under H 136 SAMAR BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 137 the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence A - The punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be shocking to conscience and, therefore, does not call for any interference - Penal Code, 1860 - s.392. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. B 7643 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.2.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40500 of 1997. Yatish Mohan, Vinita Y. Mohan, Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant. Pramod Swarup, Ameet Singh, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, Pareena Swarup, G.V. Rao for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Delay in filing rejoinder is condoned . 2. Leave granted. c D E 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 F 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 G 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 H 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A 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 B 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 C 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 D 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 E 11.02.1993. F 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal which was considered by the Appel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.