No leniency even in minor accident caused by drunken driving, says SC | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that there was no basis for showing flexibility in drunk driving as no major accident was reported.
“Just because there was no major damage and it was a minor accident cannot be a basis for showing flexibility. It was merely fortunate that the accident was not a fatal accident. It could have been a fatal accident,” the Supreme Court said.
A division bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathana said that driving under the influence of alcohol is not only misconduct but also a crime. No one should be allowed to drive under the influence of alcohol.
“Driving under the influence of alcohol and playing with other people’s lives is a very serious misconduct. There are other misdemeanors committed by employees before,” the court said.
While dealing with a petition challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court, the court made the following observations where the High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority.
Employee Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (since his death) was the driver of the 12th Battalion, PAC at Fatehpur. He was involved in a motor accident with a jeep while driving a truck carrying PAC workers from Fatehpur to Allahabad on duty at the Kumbh Mela.
He has been charged with causing an accident by hitting the back of a jeep while driving under the influence of alcohol.
Upon completion of the departmental investigation, the investigating officer proposed the punishment of dismissal, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal sentence, the employee filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed his appeal.
He then appealed to the Supreme Court. While on trial in the apex court, the employee died and his heirs were then brought to the record.
Counsel appearing for the appellant sought flexibility as it was a minor accident.
“When the employee was driving a truck carrying PAC workers, all the lives of the PAC workers in that truck were in the hands of the driver. So it can be said that he played with the lives of those PAC workers who were on duty and traveling from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty,” the court said. Mentioned.
However, considering his 25-year long service and the death of his employee, the court said it found that the punishment for dismissal could be said to be too severe and one could be treated for compulsory retirement.
“In view of the reasons given above and the bizarre facts and circumstances of the case described here, the sentence of dismissal may be said to be extremely harsh. -Co-retirement benefits and family pension benefits, if any, will be paid to legal heirs in accordance with the law of the deceased employee and keeping in mind that the punishment of dismissal has now been converted into compulsory retirement, “the court said.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)}; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’, ‘’); fbq(‘init’, ‘593671331875494’); fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’); .

Read More World News

Keep Reading Latest Breaking News

Source link


Leave a Comment