Back
2025 Supreme(UK) 119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
L/Nk/Driver Purshotam Dutt - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1315 of 2019
Decided On : 28-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry and Dismissal
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.279, S.304(a), S.337, S.338
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RULES : R.27
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ACT : S.11(1)
Headnote
(B) Appellate Authority - Duty to render a reasoned and speaking order - Failure to address relevant material, such as independent investigative findings and eyewitness testimony, upon remand constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction, rendering the appellate order unsustainable. (Paras 21)
(C) Doctrine of Proportionality - Punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct - Imposition of the harshest penalty, dismissal, solely based on unsubstantiated allegations is arbitrary and violative of administrative fairness. (Paras 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, employed as a driver, was dismissed from service following a vehicular accident. Disciplinary charges alleged that the petitioner was under the influence of an intoxicant, leading to negligence. An investigation by civil police concluded that the accident was due to structural failure of the road, a report which was accepted by the judiciary. Despite this and eyewitness testimony supporting the petitioner, the disciplinary authority dismissed him based on presumption. A subsequent appeal was rejected mechanically without addressing the petitioner's evidence or the court’s previous directions to provide a reasoned order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary inquiry was predicated on suspicion rather than evidence. The total reliance on non-medical, undocumented allegations of intoxication in the face of contradictory evidence from eyewitnesses and an external investigative report rendered the dismissal arbitrary and legally flawed.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of a public servant based on unproven allegations of misconduct, without supporting medical evidence and in disregard of exculpatory findings from external bodies, violates the principles of natural justice and constitutional fairness.
Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary proceedings must be conducted with strict adherence to evidence-based findings. In the absence of direct scientific evidence for severe charges and in the presence of credible exculpatory statements, an order of dismissal cannot be sustained as it fails the test of proportionality and fairness.
Result: Petition allowed. Dismissal order and appellate decision quashed. Petitioner ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits and arrears.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Niranjan Bhatt.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shivanand Bhatt.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of dismissal and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner asserts lack of evidence and procedural unfairness. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent argues validity of disciplinary findings and proportionality. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. rebuttal focusing on lack of medical proof and natural justice. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. absence of medical evidence renders findings unsustainable. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary punishments. (Para 22) |
| 7. final order granting reinstatement and consequential benefits. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner, who was working as LNK/Driver in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), assailing the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by respondent no.4, whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal from service was dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned dismissal order dated 06.05.2011 passed by respondent no.4. He has also sought mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits along with payment of arrears of salary from 06.05.2011 till reinstatement with 9% interest.
2. The facts of the case, as emerging from the pleadings and documents on record, are that the petitioner was enrolled in SSB on 25.01.1990 on the post of Driver. He claims to have rendered unblemished and disciplined service for more than 22 years without any adverse record or punishment. On 02.11.2007, while the petitioner was deployed on attachment duty with SSB Academy, Srinagar, Uttarakhand, he was entrusted with transportation of an Administrative Party for outdoor OGC training course from Khirsu to Khakhra village in official vehicle No. UA-12A-2645. It is submitted that while driving the vehicle on the hilly road around 08:00 P.M., a wild animal (tiger) suddenly appeared on the road. To avoid collision with the animal and to save life, the petitioner applied emergency brakes and took a slight left turn. However, due to the unstable road conditions and breakdown of the side retaining wall of the road, the vehicle slipped and fell into a deep gorge. In the unfortunate accident, the petitioner and four other personnel sustained injuries, and one Constable Amlesh Kumar later succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. All the injured, including the petitioner, were immediately shifted to Base Hospital, Srinagar Garhwal for medical treatment.
3. An FIR was also lodged the same night by SSB authorities under Sections 279, 337, 304A, and 338 of IPC before the Civil Police. After proper investigation, the Civil Police filed a final report before the Magistrate, concluding that the accident occurred due to the breaking of the retaining wall, and no negligence could be attributed to the petitioner. The department did not raise any objection to the final report, and consequently, the Magistrate accepted the closure. Despite such findings, a departmental charge-sheet dated 11.08.2008 was served upon the petitioner, containing two Articles of Charge:
(i) Article I: Allegation of driving official vehicle under influence of liquor while on duty;
(ii) Article II: Allegation that due to driving in drunken condition, the vehicle fell into the gorge, resulting in death/injuries and extensive vehicle damage; therefore, gross negligence and misconduct.
4. The petitioner denied both charges and participated in the inquiry. The inquiry concluded holding the charges proved solely on presumption that the accident had occurred due to alleged liquor consumption, despite there being no medical report, breathalyzer test, or any other forensic examination to establish consumption of liquor. Statements of injured eyewitnesses recorded before the Inquiry Officer also categorically stated that the accident occurred due to breakage of the retaining wall
