Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court recently converted the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement of a PAC driver posted at the 12th Battalion, PAC at Fatehpur who while was on duty driving a truck carrying the PAC personnel from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty met with a motor accident with a jeep while driving under the influence of alcohol.

However, the Court noted that driving a truck carrying the PAC 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.

"Merely because there was no major loss and it was a minor accident cannot be a ground to show leniency. It was sheer good luck that the accident was not a fatal accident. It could have been a fatal accident. When the employee was driving a truck carrying the P.A.C. personnel, the lives of those P.A.C. personnel who were travelling in the truck were in the hands of the driver. Therefore, it can be said that he played with the lives of those P.A.C. personnel, who were on duty and travelling from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty.", said a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna.

Even otherwise, the court opined that driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but also an offence.

But, the court, at the same time, considered 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 .

The court said that although this had not been accepted but it might be plausible and considering the appellant's 25 years of long service and fortunately that it was a minor accident which resulted into some loss to the vehicle and the fact that the employee had since died, it found that the punishment of dismissal could be said to be too harsh.

While allowing the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the PAC employee, the court converted the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, and ordered that death-cum-retirement benefits as also the benefit of family pension, if any, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee in accordance with law and bearing in mind that punishment of dismissal has now been converted into one of compulsory retirement.

Cause Title: Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) Thr. LRs. v Sanya Sahayak and Ors.