Disciplinary findings must be based on objective, reliable evidence rather than suspicion or conjecture. Dismissing an employee for alleged intoxication without medical or forensic support, while ignoring contradictory eyewitness accounts and external investigative findings, violates the principles of natural justice and constitutes a disproportionate exercise of authority.

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 and there was no neglig