# Sahdev Singh v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others - **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 104 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2001-01-11 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sahdev-singh-v-u-p-public-service-tribunal-and-others-39199 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 2All] Sahdev Singh V. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others 104 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' )(%58$5< '$7(' )(%58$5< %()25( %()25( 7+( +21 %/( 0$5.$1'(< .$7-8 - +( +21 %/( 0$5.$1'(< .$7-8 - 7+( +21 %/( 21.$5(6+(:$5 %+$77 - 7+( +21 %/( 21.$5(6+(:$5 %+$77 - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 6DKGHY 6LQJK «3HWLWLRQHUV 9HUVXV 83 3XEOLF 6HUYLFH 7ULEXQDO DQG RWKHUV «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y the Court 1. The petitioner was a police constable. He was appointed on 31.1.1976 and was confirmed on that post. In the night of 25.1.1993 he was found having consumed liquor. He was charge sheeted and after enquiry he was dismissed from service. His appeal was also rejected and his claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal was also dismissed. Hence this petition. 2. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that the petitioner has stated that he has nothing to say in his defence nor he has to produce any witness but he has prayed for forgiveness and assured that he will not commit such act again in future. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that a lenient view should be taken against the petitioner and some lessor punishment should be given to him. As Portia said in Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice', Justice should be tempered with mercy. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that although the petitioner does deserve some punishment but the punishment of dismissal is too harsh. Hence we set aside the impugned orders dated 3.6.1997, 31.10.1993 and 30.7.1993 and we direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service but he will be given only 25% of the back salary from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement and he shall be reinstated within a month of production of a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P. Saharanpur. We further warn the petitioner not to commit such act in future. It is made clear that the petitioner will get continuity of service. The petition is partly allowed. INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001 105 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9 &,9,/ 6,'( ,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21 %/( 0 .$7-8 7+( +21 %/( 0 .$7-8 - - 7+( +21 %/( 2 %+$77 - 7+( +21 %/( 2 %+$77 - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 6KHU 6LQJK «3HWLWLRQHUV 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV 6KUL 6. 6LQJK 6KUL 9. 6LQJK &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6& &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 6HUYLFH /DZ7UDQVIHUDIWHU FUHDWLRQ RI QHZ VWDWH 8WWDUDQFKDO (PSOR\HHV ZRUNLQJ LQ 6WDWH RI 83 7UDQVIHUUHG DJDLQVW WKHLU ZLOO RQO\ RQ GHSXWDWLRQ IRU RQH RU WZR \HDUV FDQ EH VHQW ± DIWHU H[SLU\ RI GHSXWDWLRQ SHULRG VKRXOG EH EURXJKW EDFN DQG DQRWKHU IUHVK EDWFK EH VHQW RQ WKHLU SODFH XQWLO ORFDO UHFUXLWPHQW LV PDGH +HOG ± 3DUD ,W ZRXOG EH DGYLVDEOH WKDW LI FHUWDLQ HPSOR\HHV DUH UHTXLUHG LQ 8WWDUDQFKDO WKHQ 83 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW HPSOR\HHV FDQ EH VHQW RQ GHSXWDWLRQ IRU RQH RU WZR \HDUV WR 8WWDUDQFKDO DQG DIWHU WKDW SHULRG WKH\ VKRXOG EH EURXJKW EDFN WR 83 DQG D IUHVK EDWFK RI 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW HPSOR\HHV FDQ EH VHQW LQ WKHLU SODFH 7KLV SURFHVV FDQ EH JR RQ IRU D IHZ \HDUV XQWLO ORFDO UHFUXLWPHQW LV PDGH By the Court 1. The petitioner has been transferred to Uttaranchal against the impugned transfer order he made a representation on 12.1.2001 and he may make such other representation as advised and the same will be decided by the concerned authority within a month of production of the certified copy of this order. 2. Till disposal of the representation the impugned transfer order dated 11.1.2001 and the order dated 19.2.2001 shall remain stayed. The petition is disposed of. 3. We would also like to recommend to the State Government that no State Government employee should be permanently posted to Uttaranchal against his wish. People living in the plains may have difficulty in adjusting to hill areas if they are permanently posted there against their wish, and some of them may even get mental depression, apart from other hardships. 4. In our opinion, it would be advisable that if certain employees are required in Uttaranchal then the U.P. State Government employees can be sent on deputation for one or two years to Uttaranchal and after that period they should be brought back to (U.P.) and a fresh batch of State Government employees can be sent in their place. This process can be go on for a few years, until local recruitment is made. 5. Hence, we recommend to the U.P. Government to reconsider it's policy and consider our suggestion of not sending the employees from U.P. permanently to Uttaranchal against their wish but only on deputation for short period.