IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6510 OF 2009 (@Special Leave Petition (C)No.12018 of 2006)

MUNNA LAL ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard both sides.

The appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police working in the  

Indira  Gandhi  International  Airport,  New  Delhi.   Disciplinary  

proceedings were initiated against him in the year 2005 alleging  

that the appellant was found in a drunken condition while on shift  

duty from 0700 hrs. to 1300 hrs. at the Indian Airlines Cargo gate.  

The immediate superior officer of the appellant, on reaching the  

office, felt smell of alcohol and suspected that the appellant must  

have been in a drunken condition. The Assistant Commandant ordered  

to take the  appellant to the airport dispensary for medical check-

up.  The doctor on duty examined him and  stated that the appellant  

was conscious though incoherent in  speech, his pupil were equal and  

normal, his pulse and B.P. was normal and there was an element of  

doubt about alcohol and suspicion of mild smell of alcohol and for  

confirmation  he  was  referred  to  Safdarjang  Hospital  for  further  

medical check up.  The appellant contended that on that day, he was  

ill and was taking medicines and this must have  caused the smell of  

alcohol. An    inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer relied

on the incomplete report of the doctor who examined the appellant  

and  held  that  the  appellant's  case  was   a  confirmed  case  of  

intoxication and reliance was also placed on the three witnesses,  

who were examined in the inquiry.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was  

no medical evidence to prove that the appellant was drunken on that  

day and he was alcoholic and he was also not taken to Safdarjang  

Hospital as suggested by the duty doctor on panel at the Airport.  

The  appellant  also  contended  that  reliance  could  not  have  been  

placed on the oral evidence given by the witnesses. Learned counsel  

appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant was found  

of  dereliction  of  duty   previously  also  and  there  were  other  

disciplinary proceedings against the conduct of the appellant. But  

in the instant case it was not proved that the appellant was drunk  

on the day when he was on duty.   Evidence was not satisfactory to  

prove that he was found with any alcohol and he was also not taken  

to Safdarjang Hospital as suggested by the first doctor.  In the  

absence of positive evidence, we are of the view that the charge  

levelled against the appellant was not proved satisfactorily. In the  

absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary authority should not  

have imposed such penalty.  Therefore,  the  punishment  imposed  

was  illegal  and  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  be  reinstated  in  

service and he is entitled to get 50% of the back-wages for the  

period  he was  out of  service.  The respondents  are directed  to  

reinstate  the  appellant  in  service  forthwith.   The  appellant's  

service  during  this  period  would  be  treated  for  other  service  

benefits such as seniority, increment and pension.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  No costs.

..................CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

...................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

...................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI; 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009