Brief facts of this case:
In summary, the petitioner was a driver assigned to the 12th P.A.C. Battalion in Fatehpur. The petitioner was operating a truck hauling P.A.C. personnel from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty when it collided with a jeep. The petitioner was charged with causing the accident by driving his truck into the back of the jeep while under the influence of alcohol. His claim that the accident occurred due to a break failure and the truck swerved into the backside of the jeep was
dismissed. He was found to be under the influence of alcohol during a medical examination on the same day, i.e, 02.02.2000. According to the employee’s statement at the time of the inquiry and his explanation ,he had not consumed the liquor while going to duty on taking the vehicle from battalion, and after the accident, with the goal of suppressing the fear of coming to battalion and parking the vehicle, he went directly to Ghazipur bus terminal and consumed 100 ml of country
wine, tho has not been approved but that might be feasible and assessing his 25 years of long service and mercifully it was a minor accident which resulted in some loss to the vehicle
Contentions of the Appellants :
The appellant has claimed that , given that it was a minor accident that resulted in some vehicle damage, and given his 25 years of service, the dismissal order is disproportionate to the misconduct proven. And as a result, it was requested that the dismissal be converted into compulsory retirement.
Contentions of the Respondents :
According to the respondent, the deceased employee is not entitled to any clemency. Driving a vehicle carrying soldiers while under the influence of alcohol is unacceptable and can be considered gross indiscipline. It is argued that driving whilst under the influence of liquor is not only a misdemeanor, but also an offence.
Finding and Observations of the Court :
- The Supreme Court ruled that the present appeal is partially allowed to the extent stated.
- The Court in light of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated above, as well as the perplexing facts and circumstances of the case, the award of punishment of dismissal is directed to be modified into compulsory retirement of the employee.
- As the employee has died, and the punishment of dismissal has now been converted to that of compulsory retirement, death-cum-retirement benefits, as well as the benefit of kinship pension, if any, shall be distributed to the inheritance of the deceased employee in accordance with law, and keeping in mind that the punishment of dismissal has now been converted to that of compulsory retirement.
- The Supreme Court stated that the absence of a major loss or fatality in an accident caused by drunken driving cannot be used to show leniency to the driver found to have engaged in such behaviour.
Opinion:
In my opinion, the judgement of dismissal being converted to compulsory retirement was right , the Court has taken into account the now deceased 25 Years of service and the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the offence proven and no hard and fast rule exists in that regard. The Court also stated that a driver cannot be shown leniency simply because the accident was minor and not fatal.
Judgment Name: Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) … vs Sanya Sahayak
Judgment Date: January 25, 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
Name of the writer: Divyanjali B Rathore
College: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law , Punjab