9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against dismissal from service based on departmental proceedings and criminal case, challenge to the proportionality of punishment awarded.
The appellant, a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary, was dismissed from service based on a departmental inquiry initiated against him for unauthorized absence, grabbing liquor forcibly, and being under the influence of alcohol. The appellant challenged the dismissal through various stages of appeal, including a writ petition, which were all dismissed leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant's counsel argued that since the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case related to the incident, he should have been acquitted in the departmental proceeding as well. It was contended that the appellant had taken medicine which caused the smell of liquor during the medical check-up, and the punishment was disproportionate to the charges. However, the Court noted that the medical report confirmed alcohol consumption by the appellant, who was absent from headquarters and involved in a criminal case for stealing liquor. The appellant's defense of being advised to take medicine lacked supporting evidence in the departmental proceedings. The Court emphasized the difference in standards of proof between criminal cases and departmental proceedings, stating that acquittal in the criminal case did not impact the findings of the departmental inquiry. The department had successfully proven the charges against the appellant based on preponderance of probabilities. Regarding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court upheld the dismissal from service, considering the appellant's role in a disciplinary force and the need to maintain discipline. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
