SAMAR BAHADUR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                        [2011] 11 S.C.R. 136


A                   SAMAR BAHADUR SINGH
                                  v.
                       STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7643 of 2011)
                      SEPTEMBER 05, 2011
B
              [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                     ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

         Se/Vice Law - Dismissal - Deparlmental proceedings -
C Punishment - Proporlionality of - Appellant, a Constable in
  the Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.), was found
   unauthorizedly absent from the Battalion Headquarler - On
   the same date he also became allegedly involved in a
  criminal case relating to forcible grabbing of liquor bottle from
D a wine shop - Appellant was acquitted in the criminal case -
  However, in the deparlmental proceedings initiated against the
  appellant, the Inquiry Officer found him guilty and
  consequently, Respondents dismissed him from se1Vice -
   Order of -dismissal upheld by appellate authority, Service
E Tribunal as also High Courl- Justification of- Held: On facts,
  justified - Acquittal of appellant in the criminal case 11ad no
  bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental
  proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are
   totally different - In a criminal case, the prosecution has to
F prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas
  in deparlmental proceedings, the deparlment has to prove
  only preponderance of probabilities - In the present case, the
  deparlment was able to prove the case against appellant on
  the standard of preponderance of probabilities - A/legations
G against the appellant were proved in the departmental
  proceedings by cogent materials on record - Appellant
  belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of such a
  force are required to maintain discipline and to act in a
  befitting manner in public - Instead of that, he was found under

H                                136
 SAMAR BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 137


the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence     A
- The punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said
to be shocking to conscience and, therefore, does not call for
any interference - Penal Code, 1860 - s.392.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                 B
7643 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 13.2.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
40500 of 1997.
                                                                    c
    Yatish Mohan, Vinita Y. Mohan, Vishwajit Singh for the
Appellant.

    Pramod Swarup, Ameet Singh, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi,
Pareena Swarup, G.V. Rao for the Respondents.
                                                                    D
    The following Order of the Court was delivered

                          ORDER

     1. Delay in filing rejoinder is condoned .
                                                                    E
    2. Leave granted.

     3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 13.02.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the      F
appellant against the judgment and order passed by the State
Public Service Tribunal, U.P., which upheld the order of
dismissal passed against the appellant by the respondents on
11.02.1993.

     4. The appellant herein was employed as a Constable in         G
the Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as
'P.A.C.')on 15.11.1978. He was posted in IV Bn. P.A.C.,
Allahabad. On 27 .10.1991, he was unauthorisedly absent from
the Battalion Headquarter and on that day in the evening he
                                                                    H
    138      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A along with one of his friends grabbed one bottle of liquor from
  the wine shop forcibly and also threatened them. With regard
  to the aforesaid incident, a criminal case was also registered
  on the basis of a complaint filed by the salesman of the wine
  shop, Sh. Rajan Lal. The appellant was also medically
B examined during the course of which he was found to be under
  the influence of liquor. The Doctor has opined that he had
  consumed alcohol, but was not intoxicated.

        5. The appellant was placed under suspension and a
C departmental proceeding was initiated against him. A
  memorandum of charges was issued to the appellant as
  against which he filed his reply. In the said departmental inquirY
  instituted against the appellant, an Inquiry Officer was appointed
  who conducted the inquiry and on completion of the said inquiry,
  submitted his report finding the appellant guilty of the charges
D framed against him.              ·

       6. Consequent upon filing of the aforesaid inquiry report,
  the Disciplinary Authority, after complying with all 'the formalities
  dismissed the appellant from service by issuing an order dated
E 11.02.1993.

        7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed
    an appeal which was considered by the Appellate Authority and
    by order dated 30.06.1993, the aforesaid appeal was
    dismissed.
F
       8. The appellant being aggrieved filed a petition before the
  tribunal which was also dismissed. Consequently, the appellant
  filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed and
  therefore, he filed the present appeal, on which we have heard
G the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

         9. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
    before us that a criminal case was also instituted for the
    aforesaid incident in which he was acquitted and therefore, in
    the departmental proceeding also which was initiated he should
SAMAR BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 139

also have been acquitted and the same should have been              A
allowed to be ended in his favour. He further submits that in
any case it has come in evidence that the appellant was
advised to take medicine which he had taken and, therefore,
there was some smell of liquor from the medicine when a
medical check-up was done. Relying on the same, counsel             B
submits that the entire charge is concocted and therefore, he
is required to be held not guilty of the charge. The next
submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that
the punishment given to the appellant is disproportionate to the
charges levelled against him.                                       c
      10. We have considered all the aforesaid submissions in
the light of the records that are available with us. The medical
report which is placed on record indicates that the appellant
had consumed alcohol, but he was not intoxicated. The
appellant was missing from the headquarters on 27.10.1991           D
from the morning and he was caught in the case registered
under Section 392 l.P.C. in the evening. The appellant wishes
to make a defence that he was advised to take medicine but
the prescription which is placed in the departmental
proceedings does not indicate that any medicine was                 E
prescribed in that prescription. The appellant was arrested in
the criminal case in connection with stealing of a bottle of
foreign liquor and even during that time he had consumed
alcohol prior to the incident. These facts have been brought
out in the inquiry proceedings initiated against him in which the   F
appellant did not participate. Therefore, whatever allegations
have been brought against him, have been proved by placing
cogent materials on record, which go unrebutted due to his
absence in the proceedings. We also find that the appellant
has been charged on the ground of negligence, derilictiofl of       G
duty and consuming liquor. The aforesaid facts are found
proved in the departmental proceedings.

     11. Acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or
relevance to the faCfs of the departmental proceedings as the
                                                                    M
    140      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A standard of proof in both the cases are totally different. In a
  criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case
  b~yond all reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental
  proceedings, the department has to prove only preponderance
  of probabilities. In the present case, we find that the
B department has been able to prove the case on the standard
  of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the submissions
  of the counsel appearing for the appellant are found to be
  without any merit.

        12. Now, the issue is whether punishment awarded to the
C appellant is disproportionate to the offence alleged. The
  appellant belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of
  such a force is required to maintain discipline and to act in a
  befitting manner in public. Instead of that, he was found under
  the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence.
D Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere with the
  satisfaction arrived at by the disciplinary authority that in the
  present case punishment of dismissal from service is called for.
  The punishment awarded, in our considered opinion, cannot be
  said to be shocking to our conscience and, therefore, the
E aforesaid punishment awarded does not call for any
  interference.

         13. In that view of the mater, we find no merit in this appeal,
    which is dismissed, but leaving the parties to bear their own
F   costs.

    B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.