Supreme Court converts dismissal to compulsory retirement in drunk driving case: Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi vs. Sanya Sahayak (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 68
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a disciplinary authority impose the punishment of dismissal for a driver found driving under the influence of alcohol? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving a driver who caused an accident while intoxicated. The core issue was whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct committed, considering the employee’s long service and the nature of the accident. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi, a driver with the 12th Battalion, P.A.C. at Fatehpur, was on duty driving a truck carrying P.A.C. personnel from Fatehpur to Allahabad for Kumbh Mela duty. On 02.02.2000, the truck was involved in an accident with a jeep. Dwivedi was accused of causing the accident by hitting the jeep from behind while driving under the influence of alcohol. A medical examination conducted on the same day confirmed that Dwivedi was intoxicated. Consequently, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer proposed dismissal, and after considering Dwivedi’s response to the show-cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him. The Appellate Authority upheld this decision. Aggrieved, Dwivedi filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, Dwivedi passed away, and his legal heirs were brought on record.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The departmental inquiry found Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing the accident. The Inquiry Officer proposed his dismissal, which was upheld by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority also confirmed this decision. Dwivedi then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, arguing that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, stating that the punishment was not disproportionate given the facts and circumstances of the case.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of service law and whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was proportionate to the misconduct committed. There is no specific section of any statute discussed in the judgment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the accident was minor, resulting in only some loss to the vehicle.
• They emphasized Dwivedi’s 25 years of service and requested leniency, suggesting the dismissal be converted to compulsory retirement.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that the High Court had already considered the issue of disproportionate punishment in detail.
• They highlighted Dwivedi’s past misconduct, including being a habitual consumer of alcohol and his misbehavior with senior officers in 1987, for which he received a “parininda lekh” (censure).
• Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, especially while carrying soldiers, was considered gross indiscipline and a serious offense.
• They argued that it was fortunate no one died in the accident, and the accident could have been fatal.
• They emphasized that driving under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but also an offense, and therefore, Dwivedi was not entitled to any leniency.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the employee.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or books as authorities. The court’s reasoning is based on the facts of the case and general principles of service law.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?
There were no authorities cited by the court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to convert the dismissal to compulsory retirement was influenced by a combination of factors. While acknowledging the seriousness of driving under the influence of alcohol, the Court also considered the employee’s long service, the fact that the accident was minor, and that the employee had passed away. This indicates a balancing of the gravity of the misconduct with mitigating circumstances and a sense of fairness towards the deceased employee’s family.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the explanation given by the employee that he consumed alcohol after the accident to suppress his fear, though not accepted, was plausible. The Court noted that the accident was minor and resulted in some loss to the vehicle. The Court also considered the fact that the employee had since died.

The Supreme Court stated, “However, at the same time, considering the statement of the employee at the time of the enquiry and the explanation given by him that on going to duty on taking the vehicle from battalion, he had not consumed the liquor and after the accident with the objective to suppress the fear on coming to battalion and on parking the vehicle, he went directly to bus terminal, Ghazipur and consumed 100 ml of country made wine, though has not been accepted but that might be plausible and considering his 25 years of long service and fortunately it was a minor accident which resulted into some loss to the vehicle and considering the fact that the employee has since died, we find that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be too harsh and may be treated one for compulsory retirement.”

The Court also observed, “Driving a truck carrying the P.A.C. personnel under the influence of alcohol is a very serious misconduct and such an indiscipline cannot be tolerated and that too in the disciplined Military.”

The Court further stated, “Even otherwise, driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Such a misconduct of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and playing with the life of the others is a very serious misconduct.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court acknowledges that driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious misconduct, especially for drivers in disciplined forces.
• However, the court also considers mitigating factors such as long service, the nature of the accident, and the employee’s death.
• Disciplinary authorities should consider proportionality when imposing punishments, balancing the severity of the misconduct with the employee’s service record and other circumstances.
• The judgment highlights that even in cases of serious misconduct, a compassionate approach can be taken, especially when the employee has passed away.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the punishment of dismissal be converted into compulsory retirement. The Court also ordered that the death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension, if any, be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious misconduct warranting strict action, the punishment of dismissal may be disproportionate in cases where the employee has a long service record, the accident is minor, and the employee has passed away. This judgment provides a nuanced approach to disciplinary matters, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant factors before imposing the ultimate penalty of dismissal. There is no specific change in the previous position of law, but the judgment provides a more compassionate approach to service law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement for Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi, a driver who caused an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol. The Court considered his long service, the minor nature of the accident, and his subsequent death as mitigating factors. The legal heirs of the deceased will receive death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension. The judgment underscores the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions.