STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. versus PREM RAM

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 15-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
495
  STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
 v.
      PREM RAM
(Civil Appeal No.3152 of 2019)
MARCH 15, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Dismissal – Respondent joined service as
Constable – Dismissal from service for misconduct on charge of
drunkenness and misbehavior with public – Writ petition filed by
the respondent – Relegated to the remedy of statutory appeal – Appeal
filed by the respondent before Inspector General of Police, which
was dismissed – Revision – Dismissed by the Additional Director
General of Police – Writ petition thereagainst  filed by the respondent
– Dismissed by Single Judge – Division Bench of the High Court
allowed the appeal by the respondent directing that the dismissal
be converted to compulsory retirement – Held: Having regard to
the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that the
respondent was a member of the police service, no justification for
the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal – Single Judge
justified in dismissing the writ petition – Order of the Single Judge
did not suffer from any error of fact or law – Order of the Division
Bench set aside.
Respondent joined the police service as Constable. He was
dismissed from the service for misconduct on charge of
drunkenness and misbehavior with public. Writ petition filed by
the respondent. High Court relegated him to the remedy of
statutory appeal. Appeal filed by the respondent before the
Inspector General of Police, was dismissed. Revision was
dismissed by the Additional Director General of Police. Writ
petition filed by the respondent challenging the said order, was
dismissed by Single Judge of the High Court. Division Bench
allowed the appeal by the respondent, directing that the dismissal
of the respondent be converted to compulsory retirement. Hence,
the present appeal.
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 495
 495
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The charge against the respondent was of a
serious act of misconduct involving drunkenness and misbehavior
with the public.  The fact of intoxication was duly proved in the
medical report.  Having regard to the seriousness of the charge
of misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member of
the police service, no justification is found for the High Court to
interfere with the order of dismissal. The single Judge was
justified in dismissing the writ petition. The Division Bench erred
in allowing the Special Appeal. The order of the Single Judge did
not suffer from any error of fact or law.  The impugned judgment
and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special
Appeal is set aside, maintaining the order passed by the Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition. [Paras 7, 8] [497-F-H;
498-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3152
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2014 of the High Court
of  Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 551 of 2014.
Saurabh Trivedi, Sunandoraha, Aviral Saxena, Advs. for the
Appellants.
S. Gowthaman,  Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In 1987, the respondent joined service as a Constable and was
posted in the District of Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. While he was posted
at Berinag, Uttarakhand it was alleged that he was found in an inebriated
state on 1 November 2006 and was misbehaving with the public.  He
was brought to the police station and was confined to the barracks. A
medical examination was done, which showed that he was under the
influence of alcohol. A charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 24
February 2007. After a disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer found
that the charge of misconduct was substantiated. Following this, a notice
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
497
to show cause was issued on 3 May 2007.  The respondent submitted
his reply on 8 May 2017.  On 16 May 2007, the Superintendent of Police,
Pithoragarh passed an order of dismissal, holding that the charge of
drunkenness and misbehavior had been proved. In the writ proceedings
instituted by the respondent, on 21 April 2010, the High court disposed of
the matter by relegating him to the remedy of a statutory appeal.  The
appeal was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Kumaon Range
on 28 August 2010 and a revision was dismissed by the Additional Director
General of Police on 19 May 2011.
3. The writ petition instituted by the responde

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