Back
Upholds Head Constable's Dismissal for Firing While Drunk, Aiming at Officers
Dismisses Petition of Head Constable Dismissed for Indiscipline Under Influence of Alcohol
The has upheld the dismissal of a Head Constable who, while on duty and in an inebriated state, indiscriminately fired 20 rounds from his service rifle and then aimed the weapon at his superior officers. Justice Biswajit Palit found no or and dismissed the .
Drunk and on Duty: The Incident
The petitioner, Som Nath, a Head Constable (General Duty) with the , had served for over 34 years. On , while deployed for Observation Post duty, he fired all 20 rounds from his INSAS rifle into the air without provocation. According to the respondents, he was heavily intoxicated at the time. When his superiors—including the Offg. Coy Comdr, Inspector M. Surchandra Singh—arrived at the scene, Nath allegedly aimed his rifle at them before being subdued. He was later medically examined, and a hospital slip noted "alcohol intoxication."
A tried him on three : ((a) of the Act), an (), and ((e)). The SSFC found him guilty and ordered his .
Plea of Violations Rejected
Nath challenged the dismissal before the High Court, arguing that the authorities had violated . His counsel, , contended that he was not provided an opportunity to engage a defence counsel during the SSFC trial and that the under Sections 20 and 22 were not attracted. She further submitted that no medical officer was examined to prove his intoxication.
The , represented by Deputy Solicitor General , countered that the SSFC had strictly followed procedure. The Commandant had offered Nath the option to nominate a "friend of accused" and to engage a civil counsel at his own expense. When Nath requested a nominee, the Commandant appointed an Assistant Commandant as his friend. The court also noted that Nath had initially pleaded guilty to all , but the SSFC, in the interest of fairness, recorded a plea of "" and examined 14 prosecution witnesses. Nath was given the opportunity to cross-examine them but declined to call any defence witnesses.
in Disciplinary Matters
Justice Palit emphasized the constrained role of a under in . Citing the 's decision in , the court held that it could not , assess adequacy or reliability of evidence, or correct . Interference is warranted only in cases of procedural violations, , or .
The court found no merit in Nath's claim that the wrong provisions of the
Act were applied.
"The petitioner did not challenge anything before the
Court during the pendency of the proceedings nor challenged the
to any other forum,"
the judgment noted. Therefore, the contention was rejected at this belated stage.
The court also relied on to affirm that while is a principle of , it may be dispensed with by statute. The SSFC's findings, though brief, were based on evidence and were countersigned by the Deputy Inspector General.
Key Observations
Justice Palit underscored the gravity of the misconduct:
"The Petitioner in an inebriated state indiscriminately fired 20 rounds from his service weapon in the air without any reason/provocation. He thereafter aimed his service rifle towards the Offg. Coy Comdr & other officers."
The court further observed that the petitioner, despite being a trained soldier, acted
"in the most irresponsible manner without provocation/reasons"
and that such conduct could have resulted in fatal injuries to
personnel or civilians.
Court's Decision
Finding no ground to interfere with the disciplinary authority's decision, the High Court dismissed the in its entirety. The dismissal of Nath from the stands confirmed. The court also disposed of any pending applications.
The ruling reaffirms the in military , particularly where the delinquent has been afforded and the findings are supported by evidence.
