1992 (7) TMI 332 - SC - Indian Laws

Single drunken on-duty act with service revolver can justify dismissal for gravest misconduct under service rules

SC allowed the employer's appeal, upholding the dismissal of the respondent gunman from service. It held that a single act can constitute 'gravest ... Dismissal of a Gunman from service - Misconduct in office hours - principles of natural justice - Whether the single act of heavy drinking of alcohol by the respondent while on duty is a gravest misconduct. - charge that he was found heavily drunk in the evening of September 6, 1979 and was roaming at the bus stand wearing the service revolver - HELD THAT:- It is not the repetition of the acts complained of but its quality, insideous effect and gravity of situation that ensues from the offending `act'. The colour of the gravest act must be gathered from the surrounding or attending circumstances. Take for instance the delinquent that put in 29 years of continuous length of service and had unblemished record; in 30th year he commits defalcation of public money or fabricates false records to conceal misappropriation. He only committed once. Does it mean that should not be inflicted with the punishment of dismissal but be allowed to continue in service for that year to enable him to get his full pension. The answer is obviously no. Therefore, a single act of corruption is sufficient to award an order of dismissal under the rules as gravest act of misconduct. Despite giving such opportunities if the delinquent officer proved to be incorrigible and found complete unfit to remain in service than to maintain discipline in the service, instead of dismissing the delinquent officer, a lesser punishment of compulsory retirement or demotion to a lower grade or rank or removal from service without affecting his future chances of re-employment, if any, may meet the ends of justice. Take for instance the deliquent officer who is habitually absent from duty when required. Despite giving an opportunity to reform himself he continues to remain absent from duty off an on. He proved himself to be incorrigible and thereby unfit to continue in service. Therefore, taking into account his long length of service and his claim for pension he may be compulsorily retired from service so as to enable him to earn proportionate pension. The second part of the rule operates in that area. It may also be made clear that the very order of dismissal from service for gravest misconduct may entail forfeiture of all pensionary benefits. Therefore, the word `or' cannot be read as 'and'. It must be disjunctive and independent. The common link that connects both clauses is 'the gravest act/acts of misconduct'. We have absolutely no doubt that the respondent, being a gunman having service revolver in his possession, it is obvious that he was on duty; while on duty he drunk alcohol heavily and became uncontrollable. Taking to drink by itself may not be a misconduct. Out of office hours one may take to drink and remain in the house. But being on duty in a disciplined service like police service, the personnel shall maintain discipline and shall not resort to drink or be in a drunken state while on duty. The fact is that the respondent after having had heavy drink, was seen roaming or wandering in the market with service revolver. When he was sent to the doctor for medical examination he abused the medical officer on duty which shows his depravity or delinquency due to his drinking habit. Thus it would constitute gravest misconduct warranting dismissal from service. The authorities, therefore, were justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal. The courts below failed to properly appreciate the legal incidence and the affect of the rules. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Issues involved: Dismissal of a Gunman from service due to misconduct, challenge to the dismissal order on grounds of natural justice and interpretation of Rule 16.2(1) of Punjab Police Manual 1934.Summary:The respondent, a Gunman, was dismissed from service for being heavily drunk while on duty and roaming with a service revolver. The dismissal was challenged in court, alleging violation of natural justice and misinterpretation of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules. The trial court and the appellate court found in favor of the respondent, citing lack of reasonable opportunity and misapplication of the rule. However, the High Court upheld the decision based on the gravity of the misconduct and the respondent's service record.The respondent's counsel argued that alcohol consumption alone does not constitute grave misconduct, especially considering the respondent's long unblemished service record. The definition of misconduct was extensively discussed, emphasizing wrongful intention and the impact on discipline in a disciplined service like the police force.The judgment analyzed Rule 16.2(1) in detail, distinguishing between gravest acts of misconduct and continued misconduct leading to incorrigibility. It was clarified that a single act of grave misconduct, such as heavy drinking while on duty with a service revolver, could warrant dismissal from service, even without prior instances of misconduct.Precedents were cited to support the decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining discipline in the police service. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, the dismissal order was upheld, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the importance of upholding discipline in the police service and clarified the interpretation of misconduct under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Manual 1934.