STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.versusPREM RAM

                         [2019] 5 S.C.R. 495                             495


              STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.                              A
                                  v.
                            PREM RAM
                   (Civil Appeal No.3152 of 2019)
                         MARCH 15, 2019                                  B
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                 HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
        Service Law – Dismissal – Respondent joined service as
Constable – Dismissal from service for misconduct on charge of
                                                                         C
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           D
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
                                                                         E
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
                                                                         F
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         G
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.
                                                                         H
                                 495
496            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     Appellants.
            S. Gowthaman, Adv. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
F           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
G     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

H
         STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. v. PREM RAM                           497
             [DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.]

to show cause was issued on 3 May 2007. The respondent submitted             A
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
                                                                             B
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 respondent against the order
dated 19 May 2011 was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court
on 15 September 2014.                                                        C

      4. In 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               D
consideration and that since he had completed 25 years of satisfactory
service in the police department, the punishment of dismissal seems to
be excessive.
      5. The State of Uttrakhand has challenged the order of the High
Court in the present proceedings.                                            E

      6. Notice 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.
       7. The charge against the respondent was of a serious act of          F
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        G
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.

1
    Special Appeal No 551 of 2014                                            H
498            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A           8. We 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.

B     Divya Pandey                                              Appeal allowed.




C




D




E




F




G




H