New Delh: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that only because no major accidents reported could not be the basis for showing reducing punishment in drunk driving cases.
“Just because there is no big loss and it is a small accident that cannot be the basis for showing reduction.
It is really good that the accident is not a fatal accident.
It can be a fatal accident,” said the Supreme Court.
Bench Division Judge Mr.
Shah and Justice BV Nagaratrath said that driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol was not only a violation but also a violation.
Nothing can be allowed to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
“Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and playing with the lives of others is a very serious mistake.
There is also another mistake that was done before by employees,” the court said.
The court conducted the following observations while dealing with the petition that challenged the command of Allahabad High Court where the High Court rejected the Writ petition asking to set aside the dismissal command authorized by the disciplinary authority.
Employee Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (since the deceased) is a driver posted in the 12th battalion, P.A.C.
At Fatehpur.
While he was in charge of driving a truck carrying P.a.c.
Personnel from Fatehpur to Allahabad with the assignment of Kumbh Mela, it suffered a motorcycle accident with a jeep.
He was charged for causing the accident by replacing his truck on the back of the Jeep while driving under the influence of alcohol.
In the completion of the department’s investigation, the investigation officer proposed dismissal, which was confirmed by the appeal authority.
Feeling disadvantaged and dissatisfied with the dismissal sentence, employees submit a request for writing before the High Court of Allahabad, who rejected his request.
After that, he appealed in front of the top field.
During fat the trial in front of the top field, the employee died and after that heir was taken in the note.
The advisor who emerged on behalf of the Applicant was looking for a punishment for the reason that it was a small accident.
“When employees drove a truck carrying PAC personnel, the life of PAC personnel traveling in the truck in the driver’s hand .
However, considering his old 25 years and employees have died, the court said that they found that the dismissal sentence could be said to be too hard and possibly treat one for mandatory retirement.
“Remembering the things above and for the reasons mentioned in Hiibove and in the strange facts and conditions of the case, narrated here, the award of dismissal punishment can be said too hard, the dismissal sentence is directed to be converted to a required retirement of employees from employees who have died In accordance with the law and given that dismissal punishment has now been converted to one of the required pensions, “said the court.