Sahdev Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and ors.

Sahdev Singh vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 19, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/485685

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/485685
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 19, 2001
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1722 of 1999
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sahdev Singh

Advocate Siddharth, Adv.

Respondent

U.P. Public Service Tribunal and ors.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Reported In: [2001(89)FLR434]; (2001)1UPLBEC865

Excerpt

- markandey katju and onkareshwar bhatt, jj.1. the petitioner was a police constable. he was appointed on 3 1,1.1976 and was confirmed on that post. in the night of 25.1.1993 he was found having consumed liquor. he was charge- sheeted and after enquiry he was dismissed from service. his appeal was also rejected and his claim petition before the u.p. public service tribunal was also dismissed. hence this petition.2. a perusal of the impugned order of the tribunal shows that the petitioner has stated that he has nothing to say in his defence nor he has to produce any witness but he has prayed for forgiveness and assured that he will not commit such act again in future. in these circumstances we are of the opinion that a lenient view should be taken against the petitioner and some lessor punishment should be given to him. as portia said in shakespeare's 'merchant of venice', justice should be tempered with mercy. in the circumstances we are of the opinion that although the petitioner does deserve some punishment but the punishment of dismissal is too harsh. hence we set aside the impugned order dated 3.6.1997, 31.10.1993 and 30.7. 1993 and we direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service but he will be given only 25% of the back salary from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement and he shall be reinstated within a month of production of a certified copy of this order before the s.s.p., saharanpur. we further warn the petitioner not to commit such act in future. it is made clear that the petitioner will get continuity of service.3. the petition is partly allowed.

Full Judgment

Markandey Katju and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.

1. The petitioner was a police constable. He was appointed on 3 1,1.1976 and was confirmed on that post. In the night of 25.1.1993 he was found having consumed liquor. He was charge- sheeted and after enquiry he was dismissed from service. His appeal was also rejected and his claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

2. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that the petitioner has stated that he has nothing to say in his defence nor he has to produce any witness but he has prayed for forgiveness and assured that he will not commit such act again in future. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that a lenient view should be taken against the petitioner and some lessor punishment should be given to him. As Portia said in Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice', Justice should be tempered with mercy. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that although the petitioner does deserve some punishment but the punishment of dismissal is too harsh. Hence we set aside the impugned order dated 3.6.1997, 31.10.1993 and 30.7. 1993 and we direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service but he will be given only 25% of the back salary from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement and he shall be reinstated within a month of production of a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P., Saharanpur. We further warn the petitioner not to commit such act in future. It is made clear that the petitioner will get continuity of service.

3. The petition is partly allowed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties Sahdev Singh vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge M. Katju and ;Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.

Service