Disciplinary punishment must align proportionately with the severity of the misconduct, and the courts can intervene if the penalty is grossly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. Heard Shri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, for the appellants and Shri V. K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ankur Azad, for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Union of India and its officers challenging the order dated 10.04.2007 whereby learned Single Judge allowed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5262 of 2001 (Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar vs. Union of India & others) setting aside the punishment order as well as appellate and revisional orders and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after taking into account the principles laid down in the decisions referred to in the order itself.

BRIEF FACTS

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent who was working as Constable Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was charge-sheeted on 12.07.1999 on two charges; first, that while being on duty on 19.06.1999, he was found under influence of alcohol and, secondly, that at about 07.30 p.m. on the said date, while coming back to the headquarter, he caused damage to a cycle in a market by his negligent driving, but did not inform the higher Authorities about the incident.

4. After conduct of departmental proceedings, the respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 21.10.1999. The departmental appeal and revision preferred by respondent were dismissed, respectively on 07.02.2000 and 25.09.2000. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the facts of the case and by placing reliance upon decision in Sahdeo Singh vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal : 2001 (2) ESC 511, and Amarjeet Singh vs. State of U.P. : 2004 (1) ESC (All) 366 , allowed the writ petition setting aside the orders impugned therein and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The learned single judge also noticed the incident giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings. The relevant observations made by learned Single Judge in this regard read as under:-

“The accident which had taken place is said to have been caused by the rear part of the vehicle driven by the petitioner, in which a cycle was damaged. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accident was not of such nature in which any person had been injured. It has also been submitted that no complaint with regard to any such accident was ever lodged. As regards the consumption of liquor by the petitioner, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had consumed liquor after returning back and not prior to going on duty. In support of the same he has placed reliance on the evidence adduced by the co-passenger in the vehicle who has stated that he did not consume liquor in his presence. The petitioner was, however, medically examined and it was found that he had consumed liquor. In evidence it has also come that another Hawaldar had asked the petitioner to bring a bottle of English wine for him and that the petitioner had consumed one peg of liquor and then went away with the vehicle. The explanation of the petitioner is that the said consumption of liquor was made by the petitioner after returning from duty. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the pe