SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1781 of 1998. D/d. 1.2.2001

State of M.P. - Appellants

Versus

Shripat Tiwari - Respondent

Constitution of India, Articles 136 and 311 - Dismissal - Punishment of dismissal of constable substituted by Tribunal to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and backwages - Charge of intoxication of liquor, smoking and misconduct with superior - No irregularity found in disciplinary proceeding or finding of guilt vitiated on any score - Ground that the charge is not such which entails dismissal from service - Order challenged - Contention that the delinquent was under suspension when he got intoxicated - Held, a suspended Government employee has no right to enter into office room and conduct in any manner he likes, being on suspension - Having regard to nature of charges levelled Tribunal has seriously erred in law in interfering with the dismissal order passed by disciplinary authority - Appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

[Paras 2 and 3]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - This appeal is directed against an order of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") interfering with an order of punishment of dismissal of a constable from service and substituting the same by directing that two increments without cumulative effect should be imposed and no backwages should be paid. It is undisputed that the respondent was a Constable and had been suspended from service on account of certain dereliction on his part. While under suspension, he committed further offences for which a set of charges were levelled against him. A departmental proceedings was initiated, an inquiry was conducted and the charges against him were established. On the basis of the said established charges the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal. He assailed that order by way of an appeal, which was dismissed. He then filed a mercy petition and having failed therein too, approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal appears to have shown uncalled for sympathy to the delinquent by the impugned order. The Tribunal has not found any irregularity in the disciplinary proceeding nor has the Tribunal come to a conclusion that the finding of guilt established in the inquiry is vitiated on any score. According to the Tribunal, the charge that the delinquent constable was under intoxication of liquor and smoked cigarette before his superior officer and misconducted himself by speaking harshly to his superior is not a charge which would entail a dismissal from service and, therefore, a sympathetic view ought to be taken in the matter. With this conclusion the Tribunal interfered with the order of dismissal and substituted the same by the punishment as already stated.

2. Mr. Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the Tribunal was in error in interfering with an order of dismissal particularly taking into account the past conduct of the delinquent-respondent of which he was put to notice while framing charges against him. He also further contended that in a disciplined force like the Police Force if such insubordination and misconduct would be allowed, then there would be gross deterioration in the discipline of the Police Force and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in showing sympathy and in interfering with an order of dismissal in the case in hand. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that since the delinquent was not in service and had been suspended, he had a right to get himself intoxicated and smoke cigarette and that would not constitute a misconduct for the harshest punishment of dismissal from service. The aforesaid contention might have some relevance if the alleged delinquency was committed in his own room, but the delinquency is alleged to have been committed while his superior officer was on duty at his work-place. A suspended Government servant cannot have a right to enter into an office room and conduct in any manner he likes merely because he is suspended from service.

3. Having regard to the nature of charges alleged against the respondent- delinquent and more particularly taking the past charges into account, we have no manner of hesitation to come of the conclusion that the Tribunal seriously erred in law in interfering with an order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and allow this appeal.

Appeal allowed.