The Supreme Court, while giving a strict decision, has said that even minor accidents caused by drunk driving should not be tolerated.
New Delhi: While refusing to show leniency to a driver who has been dismissed from service for driving under the influence of alcohol, the Supreme Court has said that just because no major accident took place, it is not a ground to show leniency in such a case. could.
Order of dismissal of employee
The division bench made the observation in a civil appeal filed by an employee against the Allahabad High Court's decision. Actually, the dismissal of the employee was ordered by the disciplinary authority. Against this he filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had refused to set aside the decision of the Authority.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious offence
Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B. Hearing the petition, a bench of V. Nagarathna said, it is a matter of good fortune that the accident was not a fatal accident. It could have been a fatal accident. The court said that driving under the influence of alcohol and playing with the lives of others is a very serious misconduct.
Government employee made this mistake
Employee Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (now deceased) was a driver posted in 12th Battalion, PAC in Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh. When he was driving the truck carrying PAC personnel going from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty, his car collided with the jeep. The employee was charged with causing the accident while driving under the influence of alcohol.
Motion for dismissal
On completion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer proposed the sentence of dismissal, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the sentence of dismissal, the employee filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed his plea. After this he approached the apex court.
Employee has died
During the pendency of the proceedings before the apex court, the employee died and thereafter his successors were brought on record. However, considering his long service of 25 years and his subsequent death, the court observed that the punishment for dismissal can be said to be too harsh and can be treated as compulsory retirement.