The court emphasized the seriousness of driving under the influence of alcohol and endangering the lives of others, while also considering the employee's long service and the minor nature of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 35483 of 2002 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition refusing to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the employee (now the heirs of the deceased employee) has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the employee Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (since deceased) was a driver posted at the 12th Battalion, P.A.C. at Fatehpur. While he was on duty driving a truck carrying the P.A.C. personnel from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty, it was involved in a motor accident with a jeep. He was charged for having caused the accident by dashing his truck on the back side of the jeep while driving under the influence of alcohol. On medical examination conducted on the same date, i.e. 02.02.2000, he was found to have been under the influence of alcohol. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him. On completion of the departmental enquiry, Inquiry Officer proposed punishment of dismissal. Second show-cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority and after considering his reply thereto the punishment of dismissal was awarded which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of punishment of dismissal, the employee filed a writ petition before the High Court being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 35483 of 2002. Before the High Court, it was also submitted that punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and has also held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the employee had preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the employee has died and thereafter his heirs were brought on record and the present appeal is being prosecuted by the heirs of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that considering the fact that it was a minor accident, which resulted into some loss to the vehicle and considering his 25 years long service, the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. It is, therefore, requested to take the lenient view and to convert the dismissal into compulsory retirement.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the aspect of disproportionate punishment imposed has been considered by the High Court in detail and having considered the past record and the misconduct committed by the deceased employee in the past and having found that he was a habitual consumer of liquor and he was remaining absent and even in the year 1987, when he was appointed in the 33rd Battalion in P.A.C. Jhansi, he misbehaved with the senior officers and was punished with one parininda lekh, the award of punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate.

6. It is submitted that driving the vehicle carrying the soldiers under the influence of alcohol cannot be tolerated and it can be said to be gross indiscipline. It is submitted that it was fortunate that nobody died in the accident because of the good luck of those soldiers, who were travelling in the vehicle. It is submitted that accident could have been fatal if somebody had died. It is submitted that driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. It is therefore submitted that the deceased employee is not entitled to any leniency.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the disciplinary proceedings, the misconduct of dr