1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner, who was working as LNK/Driver in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), assailing the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by respondent no.4, whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal from service was dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned dismissal order dated 06.05.2011 passed by respondent no.4. He has also sought mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits along with payment of arrears of salary from 06.05.2011 till reinstatement with 9% interest.

2. The facts of the case, as emerging from the pleadings and documents on record, are that the petitioner was enrolled in SSB on 25.01.1990 on the post of Driver. He claims to have rendered unblemished and disciplined service for more than 22 years without any adverse record or punishment. On 02.11.2007, while the petitioner was deployed on attachment duty with SSB Academy, Srinagar, Uttarakhand, he was entrusted with transportation of an Administrative Party for outdoor OGC training course from Khirsu to Khakhra village in official vehicle No. UA-12A- 2645. It is submitted that while driving the vehicle on the hilly road around 08:00 P.M., a wild animal (tiger) suddenly appeared on the road. To avoid collision with the animal and to save life, the petitioner applied emergency brakes and took a slight left turn. However, due to the unstable road conditions and breakdown of the side retaining wall of the road, the vehicle slipped and fell into a deep gorge. In the unfortunate accident, the petitioner and four other personnel sustained injuries, and one Constable Amlesh Kumar later succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. All the injured, including the petitioner, were immediately shifted to Base Hospital, Srinagar Garhwal for medical treatment.

3. An FIR was also lodged the same night by SSB authorities under Sections 279, 337, 304A, and 338 of IPC before the Civil Police. After proper investigation, the Civil Police filed a final report before the Magistrate, concluding that the accident occurred due to the breaking of the retaining wall, and no negligence could be attributed to the petitioner. The department did not raise any objection to the final report, and consequently, the Magistrate accepted the closure. Despite such findings, a departmental charge- sheet dated 11.08.2008 was served upon the petitioner, containing two Articles of Charge:

          (i) Article I: Allegation of driving official vehicle under influence of liquor while on duty;

          (ii) Article II: Allegation that due to driving in drunken condition, the vehicle fell into the gorge, resulting in death/injuries and extensive vehicle damage; therefore, gross negligence and misconduct.

4. The petitioner denied both charges and participated in the inquiry. The inquiry concluded holding the charges proved solely on presumption that the accident had occurred due to alleged liquor consumption, despite there being no medical report, breathalyzer test, or any other forensic examination to establish consumption of liquor. Statements of injured eyewitnesses recorded before the Inquiry Officer also categorically stated that the accident occurred due to breakage of the retaining wall and there was no negligence attributable to the petitioner. Despite such evidence, the Disciplinary Authority passed the dismissal order on 06.05.2011, holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct on presumption that liquor intoxication caused the accident. The petitioner's statutory appeal was dismissed on 23.08.2011 without proper consideration. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1305 of 2011 (S/S), which was allowed vide order dated 17.05.2017, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order. However, even after remand, the Appellate Authority passed a non-speaking order dated 09.08.2017, again upholding the dismissal without examining the key issues relating to the absence of medical evidence, eyewitness accounts, final report of Civil Police, or petitioner's 22 years of unblemished service. This impugned order dated 09.08.2017 as well as dismissal order dated 06.05.2011 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned dismissal order and appellate order are bad in law, arbitrary, and unsustainable, being based on mere assumption, without any cogent or admissible evidence to prove consumption of liquor by the petitioner. It is contended that all injured witnesses, including PW Constable Dorji Khadu, Constable Suman Dev, and Head Constable Shishupal Singh, whose statements were recorded within three months of the accident, categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that the accident occurred due to collapse of side retaining wall of the road and not due to negligence or drunkenness of the driver. These statements were completely disregarded without any reasoning.

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was immediately hospitalized after the accident, and no medical examination or alcohol test was conducted by the department to verify if he had consumed liquor. In absence of such crucial medical evidence, the serious allegation of intoxication cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Yet, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded solely on presumption, contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Civil Police investigation also concluded that the accident resulted from the damaged road structure, and no rash or negligent driving was involved. The final report was accepted by the Magistrate, and the department did not challenge it before any competent Court. Therefore, the departmental finding of negligence based on same allegations is perverse and arbitrary. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the Appellate Authority failed to follow the specific directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition requiring a proper reasoned order. Instead, a mechanically drafted rejection was issued without addressing petitioner's core arguments and supporting documents, making it unsustainable.

8. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had an unblemished record of over 22 years of service and had rendered duties with diligence. In cases where accident occurs during government duty due to unavoidable circumstances, the protection under service law and natural justice must be extended, particularly when allegations are unsubstantiated. It is also contended that dismissal from service, the harshest penalty, could not have been imposed in absence of direct evidence or, at most, it could be a case of minor negligence without any established misconduct. Therefore, the impugned orders are violative of principles of natural justice, proportionality, fairness, and liable to be quashed.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves outright dismissal. It is contended that although the petitioner had served for approximately 22 years with no prior punishment, on the date of the incident i.e. 02.11.2007, he gravely violated service discipline and safety norms. While on official duty as a Driver of a disciplined armed force, he was deputed to transport trainees from Khirsu to Khahra in Government vehicle no. UA-12-A-2645. It is submitted that, contrary to the mandate of service rules and conduct regulations, the petitioner consumed liquor while on duty, and under intoxication, he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. As a consequence, the vehicle lost control, broke through the roadside retaining wall, and fell into a deep gorge. This resulted in fatal injuries to one personnel and permanent disability to another, besides severe injuries to others and extensive damage to Government property.

10. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that during the departmental inquiry, statements of several personnel who were travelling in the same vehicle, were recorded. Their depositions conclusively established that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor and was not in a fit state of mind while driving the vehicle, which was the proximate cause of the accident. The respondents contend that the defence of the petitioner, that the accident occurred due to sudden appearance of a tiger on the road, was categorically denied by the co-passengers.

11. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the plea of absence of medical examination does not negate the charge of intoxication, since the available eye-witness evidence was cogent and reliable. The departmental inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 read with Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Being a disciplinary proceeding, strict rules of evidence do not apply, and the finding of guilt was based on credible witness statements. The respondents have further contended that even if the petitioner was not intoxicated as alleged by him ,yet his rash, negligent and careless driving, while on official duty as a trained driver, resulting in the death and life-long disability of force personnel and damage of Govt. property, clearly constitutes gross misconduct, negligence, and remissness of duty.

12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Court of Inquiry and the subsequent departmental proceedings fully established that the petitioner violated service conduct, safety protocol, and acted in grave disregard to the security and lives of force personnel. In such a situation, the disciplinary authority was fully justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The dismissal order dated 06.05.2011 was passed after due application of mind, and the appellate authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order dated 09.08.2017. The respondents submit that the petitioner is attempting to re- agitate factual findings which have already been examined by the departmental authority, and this Court in its writ jurisdiction may not re-appreciate facts and evidence like an appellate court. Furthermore, on the issue of absence of medical examination to prove consumption of liquor, it is contended that due to the seriousness of the accident and presence of grievous injuries, including one fatality, priority had to be given to treatment and evacuation of injured personnel. It is further argued that the accident was not just a lapse, but a serious breach of discipline, leading to loss of life, permanent disability, and substantial loss of government property. The penalty imposed is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, and no leniency should be shown merely due to long service.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner by means of their rejoinder affidavit submits that the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is wholly misconceived and devoid of any evidentiary support. The allegations that the petitioner was intoxicated at the time of the accident are baseless, unsubstantiated, and purely oral in nature. No medical evidence, forensic report, or credible material has been produced by the respondents to prove intoxication. The mere occurrence of an accident, without any finding of negligence on part of the petitioner, cannot constitute misconduct nor justify the extreme penalty of termination. The petitioner's service record has been unblemished throughout, and he has been victimized by being dismissed on an unproved and unsupported allegation.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary action taken against him is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The charges were never proved, no reliable evidence was led, and the respondents acted arbitrarily while imposing punishment disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Statements relied upon by the respondents, particularly those made by a constable bearing personal grudge, are motivated, biased, and lack corroboration. The rejection of the petitioner's statutory appeal was mechanical and without due consideration of the facts, rendering the entire proceedings legally unsustainable. It is argued that the respondents have terminated the petitioner's services solely on account of the accident, despite their own admission that there is no negligence attributable to him. In absence of any proof of misconduct, the impugned action is punitive, excessive, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The punishment imposed does not bear any rational nexus to the unproved allegations and is shockingly disproportionate.

15. In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the grounds raised in the writ petition remain fully justified and unrebutted. The counter affidavit fails to establish any wrongdoing on part of the petitioner, and the impugned termination order deserves to be quashed as arbitrary, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to settled principles of law.

16. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as well as the consequential orders of dismissal and rejection of appeal, cannot be sustained in law. The charges levelled against the petitioner rest fundamentally on the allegation that he was driving the official vehicle under the influence of liquor and that such intoxication resulted in the accident. However, the record reveals that no medical examination, no blood or urine test, no breath-analyser test, nor any contemporaneous medical note or report was ever prepared to substantiate the allegation of intoxication. In a case where the punishment of dismissal is founded upon a grave charge such as drunkenness on duty, the absence of any direct medical or scientific evidence renders the finding wholly unsustainable. Mere oral assertions, unsupported by objective material, cannot lawfully sustain the gravest civil consequence of removal from service.

17. At this stage, it is apposite to notice that the principles expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78, para 35, squarely apply to the present case. The Supreme Court has categorically held that :

          "35. In view of the above, law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct."

18. In view of the above, law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.

19. It is further evident from the record that the Civil Police, after conducting a detailed investigation into the incident, submitted a Final Report before the competent Magistrate clearly concluding that the accident had occurred due to the collapse of the retaining wall and that no negligence whatsoever could be attributed to the petitioner. The Magistrate accepted the Final Report, and the department did not challenge the same. Although departmental proceedings are independent, the law obligates the disciplinary authority to consider and deal with relevant evidence, particularly when an independent investigating agency exonerates the employee. The disciplinary authority ignored the Civil Police conclusion entirely, without assigning any reason, thereby vitiating the findings with perversity.

20. The Court also finds considerable force in the submission of the petitioner that the statements of the injured eyewitnesses who were travelling in the same vehicle namely - Constable Dorji Khadu, Constable Suman Dev, and Head Constable Shishupal Sing, consistently stated that the accident occurred due to the sudden collapse of the retaining wall and that the petitioner was neither negligent nor under the influence of liquor. These eyewitness accounts, coming from persons who themselves suffered injuries in the accident, carry high probative value. The Inquiry Officer failed to consider these statements and instead proceeded on the presumption that since an accident had occurred, the petitioner must have been at fault. Such reasoning is contrary to settled law which mandates that suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for proof. The finding that the petitioner was intoxicated or negligent is therefore based on conjecture rather than evidence.

21. This Court also notes that in an earlier round of litigation, the matter had been remanded by this Court to the Appellate Authority with a specific direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order upon fresh consideration. However, the impugned appellate order dated 09.08.2017 is virtually a repetition of the earlier conclusions, without adverting to the crucial issues regarding absence of medical evidence, the findings of the Civil Police investigation, the consistent statements of the eyewitnesses, or the petitioner's long and unblemished service record of over 22 years. A mechanical reaffirmation of the disciplinary authority's view, particularly after a judicial direction to undertake fresh and reasoned consideration, amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and renders the order legally unsustainable.

22. Even assuming, purely for argument's sake, that some element of misjudgment occurred on the petitioner's part, the punishment of dismissal from service, the severest of penalties, is shockingly disproportionate. The petitioner had rendered more than twenty-two years of clean and disciplined service. The accident occurred during the performance of official duty in a hilly and difficult terrain.

The finding of intoxication is unproved, negligence is not established, the Civil Police have exonerated him, the eyewitnesses support him and yet, the departmental authorities have imposed the harshest possible punishment without cogent reason. The doctrine of proportionality, as repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court, mandates that punishment must correspond to the gravity of the misconduct actually proved. In the present case, with no proven misconduct, the imposition of dismissal is manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate.

23. In view of the above discussion and the cumulative effect of the circumstances on record namely the complete absence of medical proof of intoxication, the categorical exoneration by the Civil Police investigation, the consistent eyewitness accounts supporting the petitioner, the reliance of the disciplinary authority on presumption rather than evidence, the mechanical and non-speaking appellate order in disregard of this Court's earlier directions, and the imposition of a punishment that is grossly disproportionate, this Court is satisfied that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law.

24. Accordingly, the write petition is allowed. The appellate order dated 09.08.2017 as well as the dismissal order dated 06.05.2011 are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith along with arrears of salary from the date of dismissal till date of reinstatement with interest @ 5% per annum and other consequential service benefits admissible to him under law will follow.