Munna Lal vs Union Of India & Ors

MUNNA LAL ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard both sides.

The appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police working in the

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against him in the year 2005 alleging

that the appellant was found in a drunken condition while on shift

duty from 0700 hrs. to 1300 hrs. at the Indian Airlines Cargo gate.

The immediate superior officer of the appellant, on reaching the

office, felt smell of alcohol and suspected that the appellant must

have been in a drunken condition. The Assistant Commandant ordered

to take the appellant to the airport dispensary for medical check-

up. The doctor on duty examined him and stated that the appellant

was conscious though incoherent in speech, his pupil were equal and

normal, his pulse and B.P. was normal and there was an element of

doubt about alcohol and suspicion of mild smell of alcohol and for

confirmation he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital for further

medical check up. The appellant contended that on that day, he was

ill and was taking medicines and this must have caused the smell of

alcohol. An inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer relied on the incomplete report of the doctor who examined the appellant

and held that the appellant's case was a confirmed case of

intoxication and reliance was also placed on the three witnesses,

who were examined in the inquiry.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was

no medical evidence to prove that the appellant was drunken on that

day and he was alcoholic and he was also not taken to Safdarjang

Hospital as suggested by the duty doctor on panel at the Airport.

The appellant also contended that reliance could not have been

placed on the oral evidence given by the witnesses. Learned counsel

appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant was found

of dereliction of duty previously also and there were other

disciplinary proceedings against the conduct of the appellant. But

in the instant case it was not proved that the appellant was drunk

on the day when he was on duty. Evidence was not satisfactory to

prove that he was found with any alcohol and he was also not taken

to Safdarjang Hospital as suggested by the first doctor. In the

absence of positive evidence, we are of the view that the charge

levelled against the appellant was not proved satisfactorily. In the

absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary authority should not

have imposed such penalty. Therefore, the punishment imposed

was illegal and the appellant is entitled to be reinstated in

service and he is entitled to get 50% of the back-wages for the

period he was out of service. The respondents are directed to

reinstate the appellant in service forthwith. The appellant's

service during this period would be treated for other service

benefits such as seniority, increment and pension. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

..................CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

...................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

...................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI;

29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009