Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. versus PREM RAM

Decided
15 March 2019
Judges listed
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 495 · 2019 INSC 379
Also cited as
  • (2020) 12 SCC 658 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 496, margin F

2

In 1987, the respondent joined service as a Constable and was posted in the District of Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. While he was posted at Berinag, Uttarakhand it was alleged that he was found in an inebriated state on 1 November 2006 and was misbehaving with the public. He was brought to the police station and was confined to the barracks. A medical examination was done, which showed that he was under the influence of alcohol. A charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 24 February 2007. After a disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer found that the charge of misconduct was substantiated. Following this, a notice to show cause was issued on 3 May 2007. The respondent submitted his reply on 8 May 2017. On 16 May 2007, the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh passed an order of dismissal, holding that the charge of drunkenness and misbehavior had been proved. In the writ proceedings instituted by the respondent, on 21 April 2010, the High court disposed of the matter by relegating him to the remedy of a statutory appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Kumaon Range on 28 August 2010 and a revision was dismissed by the Additional Director General of Police on 19 May 2011.

pp. 496–497, margin F

3

The writ petition instituted by the respondent against the order dated 19 May 2011 was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court on 15 September 2014.

p. 497, margin B

4

In the Special Appeal instituted by the respondent, a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 30 October 2014 allowed the appeal and directed that the dismissal from service be converted to compulsory retirement. The Division Bench held that the past conduct of the respondent should not have been taken into consideration and that since he had completed 25 years of satisfactory service in the police department, the punishment of dismissal seems to be excessive.

p. 497, margin C

5

The State of Uttrakhand has challenged the order of the High Court in the present proceedings.

p. 497, margin D

6

Notice was issued by this Court on 7 July 2015. The office report indicates that service is complete. The respondent has not appeared in these proceedings.

p. 497, margin E

7

The charge against the respondent was of a serious act of misconduct involving drunkenness and misbehavior with the public. The fact of intoxication was duly proved in the medical report. Having regard to the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member of the police service, we find no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal. The learned single Judge in the judgment dated 15 September 2014 was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The Division Bench has erred in allowing the Special Appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge did not suffer from any error of fact or law.

p. 497, margin E

8

We hence allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No. 551 of 2014, maintaining the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

p. 498, margin A