The court’s legal analysis in a recent case focused on upholding the dismissal of an employee for driving under alcohol influence. The court highlighted the severe nature of the offense and the significant risk it poses, particularly when entrusted with the lives of others. Stay tuned for a detailed insight into the court’s rationale and decision.
Facts
- Employee Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi was a driver at the 12th Battalion, P.A.C. at Fatehpur.
- He was driving a truck carrying P.A.C. personnel to Allahabad for Kumbh Mela duty when it was involved in a motor accident with a jeep.
- He was charged with causing the accident due to driving under the influence of alcohol.
- A departmental inquiry was conducted, and the Inquiry Officer recommended dismissal as punishment.
- The Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice, and after considering the reply, dismissed the employee, a decision later confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
- The employee (now deceased) filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal, but the High Court upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal by the heirs of the deceased employee.
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition and found the punishment of dismissal not disproportionate to the misconduct.
- The employee, now deceased, had appealed the judgement.
- The heirs of the deceased are now prosecuting the appeal.
- Appellant’s counsel argues for leniency due to minor accident and long service.
- Respondent’s counsel highlights past record of misconduct involving alcohol and misbehavior, supporting dismissal as a proportionate punishment.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Arguments
- Deceased employee not entitled to any leniency
- Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is both misconduct and an offense
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- Employee involved in driving under the influence of alcohol, leading to an accident with a jeep while carrying P.A.C. personnel.
- Initial claim of brake failure causing the accident was not believed, showing the seriousness of the misconduct.
- Despite no fatalities, the act of driving under alcohol influence is considered a severe offense.
- Employee’s long service and the minor nature of the accident were taken into account for reducing the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement.
- Driving under the influence poses significant risk, especially when responsible for the lives of others, as in this case with P.A.C. personnel.
- Claiming leniency based on the minor nature of the accident was not considered sufficient grounds for reducing the punishment.
- Medical examination confirmed the employee was driving under the influence of alcohol.
- The employee was a military driver posted at the 12th Battalion, P.A.C. in Fatehpur.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Decision
- Partly allowed the appeal
- Punishment of dismissal converted to compulsory retirement
- Death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension to be paid to legal heirs
- No costs ordered
Case Title: BRIJESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI (DEAD) THR LRS Vs. SANYA SAHAYAK (2022 INSC 93)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007382-007382 / 2021
