State of Uttarakhand and Ors. v. Prem Ram (2019 INSC 379)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 15 March 2019
Bench: D. Y. Chandrachudauthor, Hemant Gupta
Case no.: Civil Appeal No.3152 of 2019
Result: Appeal allowed.

Headnote

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.

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]

Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.

Official PDF Read full judgment Report an error

Judgment

DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶1Leave granted.

¶2In 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 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.

¶3The writ petition instituted by the respondent against the order dated 19 May 2011 was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court on 15 September 2014.

¶4In the Special Appeal1 instituted by the respondent, a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 30 October 2014 allowed the appeal and directed that the dismissal from service be converted to compulsory retirement. The Division Bench held that the past conduct of the respondent should not have been taken into consideration and that since he had completed 25 years of satisfactory service in the police department, the punishment of dismissal seems to be excessive.

¶5The State of Uttrakhand has challenged the order of the High Court in the present proceedings.

¶6Notice was issued by this Court on 7 July 2015. The office report indicates that service is complete. The respondent has not appeared in these proceedings.

¶7The 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, we find no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal. The learned single Judge in the judgment dated 15 September 2014 was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The Division Bench has erred in allowing the Special Appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge did not suffer from any error of fact or law.

1Special Appeal No 551 of 2014

¶8We hence allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No. 551 of 2014, maintaining the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

Case details

Arising from

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.

Appearances

Saurabh Trivedi, Sunandoraha, Aviral Saxena, Advs. for the Appellants.

S. Gowthaman, Adv. for the Respondent.

Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.