IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    REPORTABLE  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7643 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).14722/2004)

SAMAR BAHADUR SINGH                               Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Delay in filing rejoinder is condoned .  

2. Leave granted.  

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 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 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 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 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  

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  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 11.02.1993.   

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an  

appeal which was considered by the Appellate Authority and by  

order dated 30.06.1993, the aforesaid appeal was dismissed.  

8. The appellant being aggrieved filed a petition before the

tribunal which was also dismissed.  Consequently, the appellant  

filed  the  aforesaid  writ  petition,  which  was  dismissed  and  

therefore, he filed the present appeal, on which we have heard  

the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before  

us that a criminal case was also instituted for the aforesaid  

incident  in  which  he  was  acquitted  and  therefore,  in  the  

departmental proceeding also which was initiated he should also  

have been acquitted and the same should have been allowed to be  

ended in his favour.  He further submits that in any case it has  

come in evidence that the appellant was advised to take medicine  

which  he  had  taken  and,  therefore,  there  was  some  smell  of  

liquor  from  the  medicine  when  a  medical  check-up  was  done.  

Relying on the same, counsel submits that the entire charge is  

concocted and therefore, he is required to be held not guilty of  

the charge.  The next submission of the counsel appearing for  

the appellant is that the punishment given to the appellant is  

disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.   

10. We have considered all the aforesaid submissions in the  

light of the records that are available with us.  The medical  

report which is placed on record indicates that the appellant  

had consumed alcohol, but he was not intoxicated.  The appellant  

was missing from the headquarters on 27.10.1991 from the morning  

and  he  was  caught  in  the  case  registered  under  Section  392

I.P.C. in the evening.  The appellant wishes to make a defence  

that he was advised to take medicine but the prescription which  

is placed in the departmental proceedings does not indicate that  

any medicine was prescribed in that prescription.  The appellant  

was arrested in the criminal case in connection with stealing of  

a bottle of foreign liquor and even during that time he had  

consumed alcohol prior to the incident.  These facts have been  

brought out in the inquiry proceedings initiated against him in  

which the appellant did not participate.  Therefore, whatever  

allegations have been brought against him, have been proved by  

placing cogent materials on record, which go unrebutted due to  

his absence in the proceedings.  We also find that the appellant  

has been charged on the ground of negligence, deriliction of  

duty and consuming liquor.  The aforesaid facts are found proved  

in the departmental proceedings.  

11. Acquittal in the criminal case shall have 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 prove the criminal case  

beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  whereas  in  a  departmental  

proceedings, the department has to prove only preponderance of  

probabilities.  In the present case, we find that the department  

has been able to prove the case on the standard of preponderance  

of  probabilities.   Therefore,  the  submissions  of  the  counsel  

appearing for the appellant are found to be without any merit.

12. Now,  the  issue  is  whether  punishment  awarded  to  the  

appellant  is  disproportionate  to  the  offence  alleged.   The  

appellant belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of  

such a force is required to maintain discipline and to act in a  

befitting manner in public.  Instead of that, he was found under  

the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence.  

Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere with the  

satisfaction arrived at by the disciplinary authority that in  

the present case punishment of dismissal from service is called  

for. The punishment awarded, in our considered opinion, cannot  

be said to be shocking to our conscience and, therefore, the  

aforesaid punishment awarded does not call for any interference.

13. In  that  view  of  the  mater,  we  find  no  merit  in  this  

appeal,  which  is  dismissed,  but  leaving  the  parties  to  bear  

their own costs.  

......................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

......................J (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 05, 2011