# Union Of India & Ors v. No

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 618
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-22
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1303 of 2012
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-ors-v-no-53738
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

S. Shekhar

Issue for Consideration
(A) Relevancy of clinical examination to proof
drunken state of the delinquent employee at the
time of incident.
(B) Application of doctrine of proportionality of
punishment to the charges leveled.
(C) Justification of remanding the matter back
to the Disciplinary Authority keeping in view of
the efflux of time taken during litigation.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal from service -
Working on the post of Constable Driver -
One charge was that the delinquent
employee was found under influence of
alcohol - No blood test, but only clinical
examination was held to proof drunken
state at the time of incident - Effect :
Held : Mere report of the medical officer
mentioning that "clinically" the respondent
appeared to be under influence of alcohol was
not sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion in
that regard [Para 18]
(B)
Service
law
-
Doctrine
of
proportionality
-
Application
-
Punishment of dismissal - Quantum of
punishment - Writ court set aside the
order of dismissal and remanded back to
the Disciplinary authority - Legality of
writ
order
was
challenged
-
Proportionality of punishment of dismissal
with the charges and justification of
remand of matter were also felt into
consideration :
Held : Normally, it is the disciplinary authority
which should be best left with the duty of
imposing the punishment after considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, however, in
case, if on the admitted facts, the punishment
imposed is grossly disproportionate to the
offence, which shocks the conscience of the
Court, the Court has the power and jurisdiction
to interfere with the punishment imposed -
Remanding the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority would be an inappropriate exercise of
power by us at this stage and we can mould the
relief to be granted in order to sub-serve the
ends of justice considering the fact that
dismissal order was passed in the year 1999,
the writ petition was filed in the year 2001,
which was decided in the year 2007 and the
present special appeal has remained pending for
a period of about 18 years - The appellants
would be entitled for all notional benefits of
service. The order of dismissal would not come
in the way of computing the length of his
services for the purpose of granting pensionery
8 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. No. 913126828 Ex. Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar
619
and other post retiral benefits. [Paras 23, 25
and 29] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Sahdeo Singh v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal,
2001 (2) ESC 511; Amarjeet Singh v. State of
U.P., 2004 (1) ESC (All) 366; Kesoram Cotton
Mills v. Gangadhar, (1963) II LLJ 371 (SC);
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Its Employees,
1978 L/C 1667 (SC); M. L. Bose v. Its Employee,
AIR 1961 SC 1178; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of
India and Others., AIR 1987 SC 2386; Union of
India and others v. Giriraj Sharma, AIR 1994 SC
215; Harpal Singh v. State Public Services
Tribunal, Lucknow and Ors., 2000 (86) FLR 334;
Alexandar Pal Singh v. Divisional Operating
Superintendent, 1987 (2) ATC 922 (SC) -
referred to.

List of Acts
Central Reserved Police Force, Act, 1949 - Ss.
9, 10 and 11; Central Reserved Police Force
Rules, 1955.

List of Keywords
Punishment; Dismissal; Remand of matter;
Disciplinary authority; Influence of alcohol;
Departmental appeal; Gross misconduct; Cross
examination;
Medical
examination;
Minor
punishment;
More
heinous
offence;
Less
heinous
offence;
Guilty
of
disobedience;
Negligent of duty; Remissness in discharge of
duty; Blood test; Clinical examination; Quantum
of punishment; Gravity of misconduct; Judicial
review;
Delay;
Procedural
lapse;
Age
of
superannuation; Moulding of relief; Notional
benefit.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 10.04.2007 passed in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5262 of 2001;
Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar vs. Union
of India & others setting aside the punishment
order as well as appellate and revisional orders,
and remanding the matter back to the
Disciplinary

## Text

618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952,
has no application and provisions of
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952
do not bar appeal against order dismissing
the contempt petition, which judgement
apparently on account of ignoring binding
precedents is per incuriam and cannot be
pressed into service as a precedent.

17. In view of the above discussion,
as
the
learned
Single
Judge
has
dismissed the contempt petition on
coming to the conclusion that the
pleadings in the affidavit and the
documents annexed with the same do not
reveal any wilful disobedience, the intra
court
appeal
is
dismissed
as
not
maintainable.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 618
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA,J.

Special Appeal No. 1303 of 2012

Union Of India & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
No.
913126828
Ex.
Constable
Driver
Girwar Singh Tomar ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, Kuldeep Singh
Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S. Shekhar

Issue for Consideration
(A) Relevancy of clinical examination to proof
drunken state of the delinquent employee at the
time of incident.
(B) Application of doctrine of proportionality of
punishment to the charges leveled.
(C) Justification of remanding the matter back
to the Disciplinary Authority keeping in view of
the efflux of time taken during litigation.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal from service -
Working on the post of Constable Driver -
One charge was that the delinquent
employee was found under influence of
alcohol - No blood test, but only clinical
examination was held to proof drunken
state at the time of incident - Effect :
Held : Mere report of the medical officer
mentioning that "clinically" the respondent
appeared to be under influence of alcohol was
not sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion in
that regard [Para 18]
(B)
Service
law
-
Doctrine
of
proportionality
-
Application
-
Punishment of dismissal - Quantum of
punishment - Writ court set aside the
order of dismissal and remanded back to
the Disciplinary authority - Legality of
writ
order
was
challenged
-
Proportionality of punishment of dismissal
with the charges and justification of
remand of matter were also felt into
consideration :
Held : Normally, it is the disciplinary authority
which should be best left with the duty of
imposing the punishment after considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, however, in
case, if on the admitted facts, the punishment
imposed is grossly disproportionate to the
offence, which shocks the conscience of the
Court, the Court has the power and jurisdiction
to interfere with the punishment imposed -
Remanding the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority would be an inappropriate exercise of
power by us at this stage and we can mould the
relief to be granted in order to sub-serve the
ends of justice considering the fact that
dismissal order was passed in the year 1999,
the writ petition was filed in the year 2001,
which was decided in the year 2007 and the
present special appeal has remained pending for
a period of about 18 years - The appellants
would be entitled for all notional benefits of
service. The order of dismissal would not come
in the way of computing the length of his
services for the purpose of granting pensionery
8 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. No. 913126828 Ex. Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar
619
and other post retiral benefits. [Paras 23, 25
and 29] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Sahdeo Singh v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal,
2001 (2) ESC 511; Amarjeet Singh v. State of
U.P., 2004 (1) ESC (All) 366; Kesoram Cotton
Mills v. Gangadhar, (1963) II LLJ 371 (SC);
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Its Employees,
1978 L/C 1667 (SC); M. L. Bose v. Its Employee,
AIR 1961 SC 1178; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of
India and Others., AIR 1987 SC 2386; Union of
India and others v. Giriraj Sharma, AIR 1994 SC
215; Harpal Singh v. State Public Services
Tribunal, Lucknow and Ors., 2000 (86) FLR 334;
Alexandar Pal Singh v. Divisional Operating
Superintendent, 1987 (2) ATC 922 (SC) -
referred to.

List of Acts
Central Reserved Police Force, Act, 1949 - Ss.
9, 10 and 11; Central Reserved Police Force
Rules, 1955.

List of Keywords
Punishment; Dismissal; Remand of matter;
Disciplinary authority; Influence of alcohol;
Departmental appeal; Gross misconduct; Cross
examination;
Medical
examination;
Minor
punishment;
More
heinous
offence;
Less
heinous
offence;
Guilty
of
disobedience;
Negligent of duty; Remissness in discharge of
duty; Blood test; Clinical examination; Quantum
of punishment; Gravity of misconduct; Judicial
review;
Delay;
Procedural
lapse;
Age
of
superannuation; Moulding of relief; Notional
benefit.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 10.04.2007 passed in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5262 of 2001;
Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar vs. Union
of India & others setting aside the punishment
order as well as appellate and revisional orders,
and remanding the matter back to the
Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh orders.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.P. Singh, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India
assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, for
the appellants and Shri V. K. Singh,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Ankur Azad, for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed by
the Union of India and its officers
challenging the order dated 10.04.2007
whereby learned Single Judge allowed
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5262 of 2001
(Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar vs.
Union of India & others) setting aside the
punishment order as well as appellate and
revisional orders and remanded the matter
back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass
fresh orders in accordance with law after
taking into account the principles laid down
in the decisions referred to in the order
itself.

BRIEF FACTS

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
respondent who was working as Constable
Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF) was charge-sheeted on 12.07.1999
on two charges; first, that while being on
duty on 19.06.1999, he was found under
influence of alcohol and, secondly, that at
about 07.30 p.m. on the said date, while
coming back to the headquarter, he caused
damage to a cycle in a market by his
negligent driving, but did not inform the
higher Authorities about the incident.

4. After conduct of departmental
proceedings, the respondent was dismissed
from service by an order dated 21.10.1999.
The departmental appeal and revision
preferred by respondent were dismissed,
respectively on 07.02.2000 and 25.09.2000.
Being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the
respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge, after
noticing the facts of the case and by placing
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reliance upon decision in Sahdeo Singh vs.
U.P. Public Services Tribunal : 2001 (2)
ESC 511, and Amarjeet Singh vs. State of
U.P. : 2004 (1) ESC (All) 366, allowed the
writ petition setting aside the orders
impugned therein and remanded the matter
back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass
fresh orders in accordance with law. The
learned single judge also noticed the
incident giving rise to the disciplinary
proceedings. The relevant observations
made by learned Single Judge in this regard
read as under:-

"The accident which had taken
place is said to have been caused by the
rear part of the vehicle driven by the
petitioner, in which a cycle was damaged.
The submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the accident was not of
such nature in which any person had been
injured. It has also been submitted that no
complaint with regard to any such accident
was
ever
lodged.
As
regards
the
consumption of liquor by the petitioner, the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner had
consumed liquor after returning back and
not prior to going on duty. In support of the
same he has placed reliance on the
evidence adduced by the co-passenger in
the vehicle who has stated that he did not
consume liquor in his presence. The
petitioner
was,
however,
medically
examined and it was found that he had
consumed liquor. In evidence it has also
come that another Hawaldar had asked the
petitioner to bring a bottle of English wine
for him and that the petitioner had
consumed one peg of liquor and then went
away with the vehicle. The explanation of
the petitioner is that the said consumption
of liquor was made by the petitioner after
returning from duty. On this basis, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner had not consumed liquor while
on duty.

Be that as it may, in the facts of
this case, even if it is accepted that the two
charges are proved against the petitioner,
then too the ultimate punishment of
dismissal from service is too harsh and
totally disproportionate to the charges
proved against him."

6. An interim order was passed in this
appeal on 30.08.2007 noticing a suggestion
made to the learned counsel for the
respondent
that
he
may
make
a
representation before the authorities to
claim benefits of service he had already put
in, however, on the insistence of learned
counsel that he wanted to contest the
matter, the appeal was admitted and order
of remand passed by learned Single Judge
was stayed till disposal of this appeal. The
suggestion made by the Court to learned
counsel for the respondent and his
insistence to contest the matter, as noted in
6th and 7th paragraphs of interim order
dated
30.08.2007,
are
reproduced
hereunder:-

"6. We suggested learned counsel
for the respondent that he may make a
representation, if he so wants, to claim all
benefits for the service he has already put
in.

7. He however wants to contest
the matter, the appeal is, therefore,
admitted. The order of learned Single Judge
is stayed till the disposal of appeal."

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANTS

7. While assailing the order of learned
Single Judge, Shri. S.P. Singh, learned
8 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. No. 913126828 Ex. Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar
621
Additional Solicitor General of India
submits that the respondent being a
member of Disciplined Reserved Force,
was guilty of gross misconduct and once in
the inquiry proceedings, which were held in
accordance with law, the charges against
the respondent were proved, learned Single
Judge was not justified in holding that the
punishment was too harsh and, in the given
facts and circumstances of the case,
punishment in terms of dismissal from
service was rightly awarded.

8.
Elaborating
his
submissions,
attention of this Court has been drawn by
Shri Singh towards record of inquiry
proceedings wherein statement of one
Constable Guman Singh (Witness No. 1)
was recorded wherein he stated that he had
given one peg of alcohol to the respondent,
which was consumed by the respondent
then and there and he started his vehicle.
Further reference to a report of Medical
Officer was made, wherein he had opined
that the respondent had consumed alcohol,
effects whereof were obvious and he
appeared to be under influence of alcohol
clinically.

9. It is further contended that the
respondent
was
granted
sufficient
opportunity
to
cross-examine
the
witnesses, however, he chose not to
cross-examine them and, therefore, after
due observance of principles of natural
justice and following the provisions of
law, punishment was rightly awarded,
which should not have been interfered
with by the learned Single Judge merely
on the pretext that a lenient view should
have been taken by awarding lesser
punishment.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENT

10. Per contra, Shri V.K. Singh,
learned Senior Advocate submits that
witness No. 2, namely, Constable Pratap
Singh clearly stated that he was sitting
towards left hand side of driver and that the
respondent had not consumed alcohol in his
presence. Submission is that statement of
second witness has not been taken into
consideration and, therefore, the entire
departmental
proceedings
leading
to
passing of the orders impugned stand
vitiated.

11. Shri V.K. Singh has further drawn
attention of this Court towards charge
sheet, inquiry report, punishment order as
well as appellate and revisional orders in
the
light
of
provisions
of
Central
Reserved Police Force, Act, 1949 (in short
'Act of 1949') and submission has been
made that Sections 9 and 10 thereof
describe two categories of offences, i.e. (i)
More heinous offences and (ii) Less
heinous offences. It is further contended
that since the entire proceedings refer to
invocation of Section 11 of the Act, no
major penalty of dismissal from service
could be awarded as the provision itself is
meant for 'Minor Punishment'whereas
dismissal
from
service
is
a
major
punishment.

12. It is further contended that no
medical examination was conducted by the
Department, rather, reliance was placed
only on an opinion furnished by the
Medical Officer, which was not sufficient
to arrive at a concrete and definite
conclusion that at the time of alleged
incident,
the
respondent
was
under
influence of liquor. It is, therefore,
submitted that the learned Single Judge
rightly found the punishment as too harsh
in nature and, therefore, the respondent is
entitled to be reinstated in service, in the
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alternative, the order of remand to examine
award of lesser punishment cannot be said
to be illegal. He prays for dismissal of
special appeal.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

13. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we find that the provisions of
Central Reserved Police Force, Act, 1949
and Central Reserved Police Force Rules,
1955 govern the disciplinary proceedings.
In the instant case, it would be apt to refer
Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, as under:-

"9. More heinous offences.-
Every member of the force who-

(a) begins, excites, causes or
conspires to cause or joins in any mutiny,
or being present at any mutiny, does not
use his utmost endeavour to suppress it, or
knowing, or having reason to believe in, the
existence of any mutiny, or of any intention
or conspiracy to mutiny or of any
conspiracy against the State does not,
without delay, give information thereof to
his superior officer; or

(b) uses, or attempts to use,
criminal force to, or commits an assault on,
his superior officer, whether on or off duty,
knowing or having or having reason to
believe him to be such; or

(c)
shamefully
abandons
or
delivers up any post or guard which is
committed to his charge, or which it is his
duty to defend ; or

(d) directly or indirectly holds
correspondence with, or assists or relieves
any person in arms against the State or omits
to discover immediately to his superior
officer any such correspondence coming to
his knowledge; or who, while on active duty,-

(e) disobeys the lawful command
of his superior officer; or

(f) deserts the Force; or

(g) being a sentry, sleeps upon his
post or quits it without being regularly
relieved or without leave; or

(h) leaves his commanding officer,
or his post or party , to go in search of
plunder ; or

(i) quits his guard, picquet, party or
patrol without being regularly relieved or
without leave; or

(j) uses criminal force to, or commits
an assault on, any person bringing provisions or
other necessaries to campo or quarters, of forces
a safeguard or breaks into any house or other
place for plunder, or plunders, destroys or
damages property of any kind; or

(k) intentionally causes or spreads
a false alarm in action or in camp, garrison
or quarters; or

(l) displays cowardice in the
execution of his duty,

shall
be
punishable
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to fourteen years or with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to fourteen years
or with fine which may extend to three
months pay or with fine to that extent in
addition to such sentence of transportation
or imprisonment."

"10. Less heinous offences.-
Every member of the force who-
8 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. No. 913126828 Ex. Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar
623

(a) is in a state of intoxication
when on, or after having been warned
for, any duty or on parade or on the line
of march; or

(b) strikes or attempts to force
any sentry; or

(c) being in command of a guard,
piquet or patrol, refuses to receive any
prisoner
or
person
or
person
duly
committed to his charge or without proper
authority releases any person or prisoner
placed under his charge or negligently
suffers any such prisoner or person to
escape; or

(d) being under arrest or in
confinement,
leaves
his
arrest
or
confinement, before he is set at liberty by
lawful authority; or

(e) is grossly in-subordinate or
insolent to his superior officer in the
execution of his office ; or

(f) refuses to superintend or assist
in the making of any fieldwork or other
work of any description ordered to be made
either in quarters or in the field; or

(g) strikes or otherwise ill-uses
any member of the force subordinate to him
in rank or position ; or

(h) designedly or through neglect
injures or loses or fraudulently disposes of
his arms, clothes, tools, equipments,
ammunition or accountrement or any such
articles entrusted to him or belonging to
any other person ; or

(i)
malingers
or
feigns
or
produces disease or infirmity in himself, or
intentionally delays his cure, or aggravates
his disease or infirmity; or

(j) with intent to render himself or
any
other
person
unfit
for
service,
voluntarily causes hurt to himself or any
other person; or

(k) does not, when called upon by
his superior officer so to do or upon
ceasing to be a member of the force
forthwith deliver up, or duly account for,
all or any arms,. Ammunition, stores,
accountrements or other property issued or
supplied to him or in his custody or
possession as such member; or

(l) knowingly furnishes a false
return or report of the number or state of
any men under his command or charge or
of any money, arms ammunition, clothing,
equipments, stores or other property in his
charge, whether belonging to such men or
to the Government or to any member of or
any

(m) person attached to the force
or who through design or culpable neglect,
omit, or refuses to make or send any return
or report of the matters aforesaid ; or

(n) absent himself without leave,
or without sufficient cause overstays leave
granted to him: or

(o) is guilty of any act or
omission which, though not specified in
this Act, is prejudicial to good order and
discipline: or

(p) contravenes any provision of
this Act for which no punishment is
expressly provided: or who, while not on
active duty:-
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(q) commits any of the offences
specified in clauses (e) to (l) (both
inclusive) of section 9, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to three months pay, or with both."

14. The categorisation of offences in
'More heinous offences' and 'Less heinous
offences' reflects that, in case the department
is inclined to proceed against a delinquent
employee, it has to be ascertained by the
department as to under which category the
offences committed by the employee would
fall; that is to say, as to whether the offence
falls under Section 9 or under Section 10.

15. Since, in the present case, the
department has throughout invoked Section 11
of the Act, it would be appropriate to refer the
same, which is reproduced as under:-

"11. Minor punishments.- (1) The
Commandant or any other authority or officer
as may be prescribed, may, subject to any
rules made under this Act award in lieu of or
in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one
or more of the following punishments to any
member of the force whom he considered to
be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or
remissness in the discharge of any duty or of
other misconduct in his capacity as a member
of the force, that is to say :-

(a) reduction in rank;

(b) fine of any amount not
exceeding one month's pay and allowances;

(c) confinement to quarters, lines
or camp for a term not exceeding one
month;

(d) confinement in the quarterguard for not more than twenty eight days
with or without punishment drill or extra
guard, fatigue or other duty; and

(e) removal from any office of
distinction or special emolument in the
force.

(2) Any punishment specified in
clause (c ) or clause (b ) of sub-section (l)
may be awarded by any gazetted officer
when in command of any detachment of the
force away from headquarters, provided he
is specially authorised in this behalf by the
Commandant.

(3) The Assistant Commandant, a
Company Officer or a Subordinate Officer ,
not being below the rank of Subedar or
Inspector
commanding
a
separate
detachment or an outpost, or in temporary
command at the headquarters of the force,
may, without a formal trial, award to any
member of the force who is for the time
being subject to his authority any one or
more of the following punishments for the
commission of any petty offence against
discipline which is not otherwise provided
for in this Act or which is not of a
sufficiently
serous
nature
to
require
prosecution before a Criminal Court that is
to say:-

(a) confinement for not more that
seven days in the quarterguard or such
other place as may be considered suitable,
with forfeiture of all pay and allowances
during its continuance;

(b) punishment drill, or extra
guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more
than
thirty
days,
with
or
without
confinement to quarters, lines, or camp.

(4) A jemadar or Sub-Inspector
who is temporarily in command of a
8 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. No. 913126828 Ex. Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar
625
detachment or an outpost may in like
manner and for the commission of any like
offence award to any member of the force
for the time being subject to his authority
any of the punishment specified in clause
(b) of sub-section (3) for not more than
fifteen days."

16. A bare perusal of Section 11 of the
Act
reflects
that
minor
punishments
prescribed under sub-clauses (a) to (e) of
Sub-Section (1) can be imposed on any
member of force in lieu of, or in addition
to, suspension or dismissal, in a case where
the authority finds that the member of the
force is guilty of disobedience, negligent of
duty, or remissness in the discharge of any
duty or of other misconduct in his capacity
as a member.

17. In the instant case, right from the
issuance of charge sheet till the revision of
the respondent was decided, Section 11 (1)
was referred. Therefore, it was incumbent
for the respondent to minutely examine as
to whether the alleged act of the respondent
falls within Section 9 or Section 10 of the
Act, that is to say whether the act is a more
heinous offence or less heinous offence.
The entire proceedings leading to passing
of the orders impugned completely ignore
the fact that even if the respondent was
allegedly found under influence of alcohol
on 19.06.1999, what act of misconduct and
to what gravity was committed by him. It
has come on record, as also noticed by the
learned Single Judge, that a cycle was
damaged by the rear part of the vehicle
driven by the respondent and the accident
was not of such a nature in which any
person had been injured. Under such
circumstances, the question of considering
the award of punishment in lieu of, or in
addition to, suspension or dismissal, as
provided under Clauses (a) to (e) of subSection (1) of Section 11 should have been
critically analyzed by the Authority,
however, the extreme penalty of dismissal
from
service
was
awarded
to
the
respondent and despite raising all possible
grounds of challenge to the order of
punishment as well as validity of the
inquiry proceedings, appeal and revision
preferred
by
the
respondent
were
dismissed.

18. We also find that the respondent
was not subjected to any blood test etc. so
as to form a conclusive opinion regarding
his drunken state at the time of incident.
Mere
report
of
the
medical
officer
mentioning that "clinically" the respondent
appeared to be under influence of alcohol,
in our view, was not sufficient to arrive at a
definite
conclusion
in
that
regard,
particularly when there were contradictory
statements of the witnesses regarding
consumption of alcohol by the respondent.
The report of the Medical Officer, based
upon the clinical examination of the
respondent and expressing opinion against
him, reads as under:-

"In my opinion Ct/Drv G.S. Tomar has
consumed alcohol and effects of alcohol are obvious
and he appears to be under influence of alcohol
clinically."

19. The law relating to quantum of
punishment corresponding to the gravity of
misconduct, if any, has been laid down
time and again. The Apex Court, in the
case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India
and Others., AIR 1987 SC 2386, has held
that "the question of the choice and
quantum of punishment is within the
jurisdiction and discretion of the CourtMartial. But the sentence has to suit the
offence and the offender. It should not be
vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be
so disproportionate to the offence as to
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shock the conscience and amount in itself
to conclusive evidence of bias. The
doctrine of proportionality, as part of the
concept of judicial review, would ensure
that even on an aspect which is, otherwise,
within the exclusive province of the CourtMarital, if the decision of the Court even as
to sentence is an outrageous defiance of
logic, then the sentence would not be
immune from correction. Irrationality and
perversity are recognised grounds of
judicial review."

20. In the case of Union of India and
others v. Giriraj Sharma, AIR 1994 SC
215, the Apex Court has held that overstaying of leave subsequent to the order of
rejection of application for extension of
leave could not be considered to be a sever
enough charge to warrant punishment of
dismissal from service and the same was
held to be harsh and disproportionate.

21. A Division Bench of this Court, in
the case of Harpal Singh v. State Public
Services Tribunal, Lucknow and Ors.,
2000 (86) FLR 334, has held that where it
was on account of negligence of the
constable of the G.R.P. that one passenger
was misbehaved with and was murdered,
the same could not be a case of serious
misconduct and held that the punishment of
dismissal
from
service
was
totally
disproportionate to the offence and thus
directed reinstatement of the employee in
service, with half back wages and also
ordered that he be given a severe warning.

22. In the case of Alexandar Pal
Singh
v.
Divisional
Operating
Superintendent, 1987 (2) ATC 922 (SC),
the Supreme Court has held that ordinarily
the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with
the discretion of the punishing authority in
imposing particular penalty but this rule
has an exception. If the penalty imposed is
grossly disproportionate to the misconduct
committed, then the Court can interfere.
The railway employee on being charged
with negligence in not reporting to the
railway hospital for treatment was removed
from service. The Supreme Court found it
fit to interfere with the punishment of
removal from service and modified it to
withholding of two Increments.

23. In the light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court as well as this Court, the
broad principle which emerges is that,
normally, it is the disciplinary authority
which should be best left with the duty of
imposing the punishment after considering
the facts and circumstances of the case,
however, in case, if on the admitted facts,
the
punishment
imposed
is
grossly
disproportionate to the offence, which
shocks the conscience of the Court, the
Court has the power and jurisdiction to
interfere with the punishment imposed.

24. In view of aforesaid discussion, we
are of the view that while the learned
Single Judge did not err in setting aside the
order of punishment, we have to examine
as to whether remand to the Disciplinary
Authority can be resorted to at this stage. If
we simply dismiss the appeal, necessary
consequence would be that matter would
go back to the Disciplinary Authority to
pass a fresh order which, when passed in
either way, would give rise to further
litigation in terms of appeal, revision and
writ petition at the instance of the party
aggrieved of the same.

25. We have been informed by the
learned counsel for both sides that the
respondent is now aged about 54 years and
the age of superannuation is 60 years.
Therefore, even if we find that the order of
8 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. No. 913126828 Ex. Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar
627
dismissal from service was rightly set aside
by the learned single judge, remanding the
matter to the Disciplinary Authority would
be an inappropriate exercise of power by us
at this stage and we can mould the relief to
be granted in order to sub-serve the ends of
justice considering the fact that dismissal
order was passed in the year 1999, the writ
petition was filed in the year 2001, which
was decided in the year 2007 and the
present
special
appeal
has
remained
pending for a period of about 18 years.

26. We may also mention that the
instant appeal was filed in the year 2007 as
a defective one on account of delay of 68
days. Although delay was condoned by
order dated 30.08.2007, on which date the
appeal was admitted and an interim order
was also passed, the order sheet reveals that
the appellants did not pursue the appeal
with diligence, probably on account of an
interim order having been passed in their
favour which was directed to remain
operative till disposal of the appeal. Later on,
the appeal was assigned a regular number in
the year 2012 and on 20.09.2017, none
appeared to press the appeal even in the
revised list although the appeal has been filed
by Union of India and its officials.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for
want of prosecution. On a restoration
application filed by the appellants in the year
2017, the appeal was restored to its original
number after four years by order dated
28.10.2021. Even thereafter, the appeal was
not pursued by the appellants and was taken
up for consideration on 14.07.2025, on which
date order for listing of the appeal in top ten
cases was passed. Thereafter, the appeal was
listed on three occasions and was heard
finally on 19.08.2025.

27.
The
aforesaid
proceedings
demonstrate that for a period of 18 years,
the
appellants
were
not
diligently
prosecuting the lis and, for this additional
reason also, we, for delay occurred on account
of procedural lapses attributable to the
appeellants, are inclined not to penalize the
respondent whose services were terminated in
the year 1999 and who succeeded from the writ
Court in the year 2007. The appellants cannot
earn premium on account of laches/lapses on
their own part and, hence, for this reason too,
we are inclined to mould relief.

28. We are of the view that since about
6 years are left for the respondent to reach
the age of superannuation, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of the appeal
accordingly by moulding relief. The normal
rule is that when the dismissal order is set
aside, reinstatement with full back wages
has to be granted vide Kesoram Cotton
Mills vs. Gangadhar, (1963) II LLJ 371
(SC); Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Its Employees, 1978 L/C 1667 (SC) and
M.L. Bose vs. Its Employee, AIR 1961 SC
1178.

29. In the facts of the case, we direct
the appellants to reinstate the respondent in
service within a period of three weeks from
the date a certified copy of this order is
served upon them on the current pay-scale
applicable for the post of Constable Driver
and he would be entitled for all notional
benefits of service. The order of dismissal
would not come in the way of computing
the length of his services for the purpose of
granting pensionery and other post retiral
benefits. The respondent shall also be
entitled to get 25% back-wages/salary from
the date of his dismissal, i.e. w.e.f.
21.10.1999
till
the
date
of
his
reinstatement. The aforesaid benefits shall
be computed and released in favour of the
respondent within a period of two months
from service of copy of order.
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. With the aforesaid observations,
the special appeal stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 628
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 3032 of 2025

Uttar Pradesh Gram Rojgar Sevak Sangh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Shobh Nath

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
How far the lack of an appropriate guidelines
may come in the way of giving effect the
Government Order dated 18.03.2024 to grant
compassionate appointment to the dependent of
deceased?

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Entitlement of dependent
of deceased, held the post of Rojgar
Sewak - General direction sought for
compassionate appointment relying upon
the GO dated 18.03.2024 - However, the
District
Magistrate,
in
the
personal
affidavit, averred that in absence of
guidelines
for
giving
compassionate
appointment in terms of the Government
Order
dated
18.03.2024,
no
such
appointments are being considered -
Permissibility
-
Necessity
of
issuing
direction to ensure compliance of GO
dated
18.03.2024
also
felt
into
consideration :
Held : Once the Government has issued a
Government Order providing for compassionate
appointment to the dependants of the deceased
Rozgar Sevak, every district has to comply with
the same - As far as the guidelines are
concerned, in absence of any Rule or Regulation
framed in that regard in such districts, the
eligibility criteria
laid
down in the U.P.
Recruitment of Dependants of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as
amended from time to time, may be followed -
I further issue directions to the Secretary, Gram
Vikas
to
issue
necessary
guidelines
and
directions so as to ensure that the Government
Order dated 11.03.2024 is complied in its letter
and spirit in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh.
[Paras 7 and 8] (E-1)

List of Acts
U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government
Servants
Dying
in
Harness
Rules,
1974;
Government Order dated 18.03.2024.

List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment; Dependent of
deceased; Absence of guidelines; Secretary,
Gram Vikas; Directions; Affected
families;
Application for compassionate appointment;
Consideration without undue delay.

Case Arising From
Seeking compassionate appointment to the
dependent of deceased of Rojgar Sewak in term
of Government Order dated 18.03.2024.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
petitioner
is
seeking
compassionate
appointment on account of death of his
father working as Rozgar Sevak, while in
employment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon Government Order issued
in this regard on 18.03.2024. Accordingly
this Court on 11.03.2024 directed the
learned
Standing
Counsel
to
obtain