IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12279 of 2021

======================================================

Ram Pravesh Singh S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village and

P.O.-Bihari Bigha, P.S.-Pandarak, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home,

Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

4.The Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, District-Gaya.

5.The Superintendent of Police, District-Nawada.

6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Reserved)-cum-Conducting Officer,

Police Kendra, District-Nawada.

... ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate

Mr. Pratik Ray, Advocate

Mr. Mritunjay Harsh, Advocate

Mr. Keshav Anand, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Nasrul Khan, SC-1

Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-1

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 17-07-2026

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned Advocate for

the petitioner, and Mr. Nasrul Khan, learned Standing Counsel

No. 1, assisted by Ms. Babita Kumari, learned Advocate

appearing for the State.

2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of Memo No. 2358

dated 29.05.2020 issued by respondent no. 5, whereby he was

inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service from the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

2/17

post of PTC (Writer/Constable) while posted at Pakribarawan

Police Station, District-Nawada. Aggrieved by the said order of

dismissal, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which also

came to be rejected vide Memo No. 391 dated 29.04.2021.

Thereafter, the memorial preferred by the petitioner against the

order of dismissal as well as the appellate order before

respondent no. 3 was also rejected vide Memo No. 413 dated

21.07.2023. The said order has also been challenged by filing

Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024.

3. The brief facts, as culled out from the records for

proper adjudication of the present writ petition, are that while

the petitioner was working as PTC (Writer/Constable) at

Pakribarawan Police Station in the district of Nawada, he was

made an accused in connection with Pakribarawan P.S. Case No.

377 of 2019, instituted on 16.11.2019 for the offence punishable

under Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,

2016. The FIR alleges that while the informant was on

patrolling duty, he noticed two persons standing at the gate of

the police station engaged in a heated altercation. On noticing

the informant and other police personnel, both persons

attempted to flee but were apprehended. The accused persons

were identified as Ratnakar Pandit and the present petitioner. On

suspicion that both were under the influence of liquor, they were

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

3/17

subjected to a breath analyzer test, which allegedly confirmed

that they had consumed alcohol. Subsequently, the petitioner

was medically examined by the Medical Officer at the Primary

Health Centre, Pakribarawan, who recorded that the smell of

toddy was emanating from the petitioner's mouth.

4. Consequent upon the aforesaid incident, the

petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental

proceeding was initiated against him. A memorandum of

charges (Prapatra ‘K’) dated 05.01.2020 was served alleging,

inter alia, that while discharging official duties, the petitioner

had consumed liquor, which is prohibited in the State of Bihar.

It was further alleged that he had neglected his official duties

while under the influence of liquor, disobeyed lawful orders,

and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a member of the

disciplined force.

5. Upon receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner

submitted a detailed written explanation specifically asserting

that the Medical Officer had merely found the smell of toddy

emanating from his mouth and despite such medical opinion, he

had been falsely implicated for consumption of liquor. It was

further stated that he had consumed toddy on the advice of a

medical practitioner for treatment of his illness. The petitioner

also alleged mala fide on the part of the Officer-in-Charge of

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

4/17

Pakribarawan Police Station, contending that the latter was

harbouring personal animosity against him. The petitioner

further pointed out that he had been serving as a Constable since

1986, had earned several commendations for his meritorious

service, and had maintained an unblemished service record

throughout his career.

6. During the departmental enquiry, the department

examined five witnesses in support of the charges. Upon

conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his

report vide Memo No. 1608 dated 26.03.2020 (Annexure-7),

holding all the charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter,

the petitioner was served with a second show-cause notice vide

Memo No. 1652 dated 31.03.2020 calling upon him to submit

his representation against the proposed punishment. The

petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 14.05.2020 reiterating

the defence taken in his written statement. He further contended

that neither his blood nor urine samples had been examined and

he had been held guilty solely on the basis of a breath analyzer

test, contrary to the settled legal position laid down by this

Court. The disciplinary authority, however, being dissatisfied

with the explanation furnished by the petitioner, passed the

impugned order of dismissal vide Memo No. 2358 dated

29.05.2020 (Annexure-10).

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

5/17

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an

appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range,

Gaya, which came to be rejected vide Memo No. 1818 dated

28.05.2021 (Annexure-12). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a

memorial against the orders of dismissal and rejection of appeal.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, the said

memorial was also rejected vide Memo No. 413 dated

21.07.2023. Consequently, the petitioner challenged the said

order by filing Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024.

8. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner,

assailing the impugned orders, primarily submitted that the

charges contained in (Prapatra ‘K’) are vague and contrary to

the medical evidence available on record and, therefore, the

entire disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated in law. It is

contended that the Medical Officer, who examined the

petitioner, categorically recorded in his report (Annexure-2/A)

that the smell of toddy was emanating from the petitioner's

mouth. Despite such clear medical opinion, the disciplinary

authority proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner had

consumed alcohol solely on the basis of an alleged breath

analyzer test. It is argued that neither the breath analyzer report

was brought on record during the enquiry nor was the person

who conducted the test examined as a witness. Even the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

6/17

Medical Officer, who was examined during the departmental

enquiry, consistently deposed that the petitioner had consumed

toddy and not liquor. It is further contended that despite the

petitioner's request, the medical practitioner who had allegedly

advised him to consume toddy for treatment of his ailment was

not examined.

9. Placing reliance upon the Bihar Nira (Unfermented

Juice of Palm) Rules, 2017, learned Advocate submitted that the

consumption of toddy is neither prohibited nor punishable under

law and only fermented palm juice, which falls within the ambit

of Section 2(16) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016,

is prohibited. Learned Advocate further informed this Court that

during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner

attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022. However, on

account of the impugned order of dismissal, he has been

deprived of all consequential retiral benefits despite having

rendered long and otherwise blemish-free service.

10. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for the

State, while controverting the submissions advanced on behalf

of the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was apprehended

by the informant while creating nuisance in an intoxicated

condition. According to the breath analyzer test, the petitioner

was found to be under the influence of liquor, whereafter the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

7/17

aforesaid FIR was instituted. Consequent thereto, the petitioner

was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding

was initiated by serving the memorandum of charges. Shri

Madan Kumar Rai, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was

appointed as the Inquiry Officer, while Shri Rameshwar Thakur,

Inspector of Police, DCB Section, was appointed as the

Presenting Officer, who was subsequently replaced by Shri

Sanjay Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Transport Section, Police Line.

During the course of the enquiry, five departmental witnesses

were examined, and the petitioner was afforded full opportunity

to cross-examine them. Copies of the statements of all witnesses

were also supplied to the petitioner. Upon conclusion of the

enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding the

charges proved. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada, after

considering the enquiry report, afforded the petitioner an

opportunity to submit his final representation, but finding the

same unsatisfactory, imposed the punishment of dismissal from

service. The said order was thereafter affirmed by the Inspector

General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya.

11. Learned Advocate for the State further submitted

that toddy also falls within the definition of country/traditional

liquor under Section 2(16) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

Act, 2016 and is, therefore, prohibited under the Act.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

8/17

Consequently, the plea of the petitioner that he had consumed

toddy on medical advice does not improve his case. It is further

contended that the breath analyzer report clearly established that

the petitioner was under the influence of liquor, which is

completely prohibited in the State of Bihar. Accordingly, the

punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is

proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against

him.

12. Before examining the validity of the impugned

orders, this Court considers it appropriate to delineate the scope

of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Kuldeep Singh v.

Commissioner of Police & Others, (1999) 2 SCC 10, held that

the High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review,

cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded in a departmental

inquiry or assume the role of an appellate authority. However,

this does not imply that the Court is powerless to interfere in all

circumstances. The power of judicial review vested in the High

Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the Constitution

extends to departmental proceedings as well. Interference is

warranted where there is no evidence to support the findings,

where the findings are such as no reasonable or prudent person

could have arrived at, where the findings are perverse, or where

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

9/17

they have been recorded at the dictates of a superior authority.

14. Referring to various earlier decisions, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court further reiterated that where findings of

misconduct are based on no evidence, or where the conclusions

are such that no reasonable person could have reached them,

such findings are liable to be set aside as perverse. It has been

also held that where a quasi-judicial authority records findings

based on no legal evidence, or where the findings are merely its

ipse dixit or are founded on conjectures and surmises, the

inquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application

of mind and consequently stands vitiated.

15. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

in Union of India & Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC

610, exhaustively explained the scope of interference in

disciplinary proceedings while exercising jurisdiction under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court held that

judicial review is confined to examining whether:

“(a) the inquiry is held by a competent

authority;

(b) the inquiry is held according to the

procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) There is violation of the principles of

natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

10/17

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves

from reaching a fair conclusion by some

considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits

of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves

to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous

considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is

wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable

person could have arrived at such a conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority erroneously

admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the

finding; and

(h) the finding of fact is based on no

evidence.”

16. Having noticed the scope of judicial review, this

Court now proceeds to examine the facts of the present case.

17. The memorandum of charge is founded upon

Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 377 of 2020, registered under

Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. On

a comparative examination of the First Information Report and

the medical report, it is evident that the petitioner was examined

by the Medical Officer, PHC, Pakribarawan, Nawada. The

Medical Officer recorded that, upon examination, he found the

smell of toddy emanating from the petitioner's mouth. The said

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

11/17

medical report has also been relied upon as one of the

documentary exhibits in support of the memorandum of charge.

18. The charge against the petitioner, however, alleges

that he had consumed alcohol and was creating a nuisance under

its influence. There can be no dispute that in a departmental

proceeding, the charges are required to be established on the

touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities and not beyond

reasonable doubt, as is required in a criminal trial. Nevertheless,

the sufficiency of evidence necessarily postulates the existence

of some legally admissible evidence establishing a nexus

between the charged officer and the alleged misconduct.

19. In Sheikh Bahadur v. Union of India & Others,

(2002) 7 SCC 142, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

however voluminous the evidence may be, if it is neither

relevant nor establishes any nexus between the alleged

misconduct and the delinquent employee, it would amount to no

evidence in the eyes of law.

20. On a careful examination of the memorandum of

charge and the inquiry report, this Court finds that although the

medical report was exhibited and Dr. Rama Kant Nishad,

Medical Officer, PHC, Pakribarawan was examined during the

inquiry, he categorically deposed that the petitioner had

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

12/17

consumed toddy and, therefore, the smell of toddy was

emanating from his mouth, thereby supporting the medical

report.

21. If the disciplinary authority was certain that the

petitioner had consumed alcohol and that such allegation stood

corroborated by a breath analyser test, it ought to have produced

the breath analyser report and examined the person who

conducted the test. In the absence of such evidence, no

definitive conclusion regarding the consumption of alcohol

could legally be drawn.

22. In Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of

Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

categorically held that the consumption of alcohol is best

established through scientific examination of blood or urine

samples. Merely because the breath of a person smells of

alcohol, or because his gait is unsteady or his speech is slurred,

such circumstances, by themselves, are insufficient to

conclusively establish consumption of alcohol.

23. Even if this Court were to assume and accept the

contention of the State-respondents that the consumption of

toddy falls within the definition of "liquor" under Section 2(16)

of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and is, therefore,

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

13/17

prohibited and punishable, for which the petitioner has been

held guilty, such contention cannot be sustained for the simple

reason that no such charge was ever levelled against the

petitioner while framing the memorandum of charge (Prapatra

'K'). This Court, in the aforesaid premise, has no hesitation in

holding that the charge framed against the petitioner is not only

contrary to the medical report but is also vague and devoid of

the requisite particulars.

24. During the departmental inquiry, several witnesses

were examined. However, none of them supported the charge to

the extent that the petitioner had consumed alcohol. On the

contrary, they merely deposed that a breath analyser test was

conducted and it allegedly reflected an alcohol content of 82.6

mg per 100 ml. The petitioner specifically disputed the said

assertion and consistently maintained that he had consumed

toddy on the advice of his medical practitioner. He further

requested that Dr. Pramod Kumar Pankaj, B.H.M.S., be

permitted to appear as a defence witness. Such request,

however, was rejected without assigning any cogent reason.

25. Once this Court has found that neither the breath

analyser report was exhibited nor proved by examining the

person who conducted the test, the allegation regarding

consumption of alcohol cannot be said to have been established.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

14/17

It is the bounden duty of the Inquiry Officer to arrive at his

findings on the basis of legally admissible evidence brought on

record by the parties.

26. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank &

Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

categorically held that material collected during investigation

cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence in a departmental

proceeding. Mere production or tendering of a document does

not prove its contents. Consequently, neither the First

Information Report nor the oral statements of witnesses

referring to the alleged breath analyser test could constitute

proof of the charge of consumption of alcohol in the absence of

the breath analyser report itself or the testimony of the person

who conducted the test.

27. From careful perusal of the inquiry report, it

further reveals that the Presenting Officer failed to discharge his

obligation by producing all the relevant documentary evidence

and examining the witnesses necessary to establish the charge.

On the contrary, the Medical Officer, who examined the

petitioner immediately after the institution of the FIR and whose

testimony was recorded during the departmental inquiry,

consistently stated that the petitioner had consumed toddy and

that the smell emanating from his breath was that of toddy.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

15/17

Neither the Inquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority has

assigned any reason whatsoever for discarding the said medical

opinion and testimony.

28. The disciplinary authority also failed to discharge

its statutory obligation while passing the order of dismissal. The

detailed reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show-

cause notice was neither discussed nor considered. Instead, the

disciplinary authority merely observed that even if the

petitioner's defence that he had consumed toddy, was accepted,

such consumption was prohibited under the Act and, therefore,

the petitioner was liable to be dismissed from service. While

arriving at such conclusion, the disciplinary authority

completely overlooked the crucial fact that the charge framed

against the petitioner was confined to the allegation of

consumption of alcohol and creating nuisance under its

influence. No charge whatsoever relating to the consumption of

toddy had ever been framed.

29. Neither the Inquiry Officer nor the disciplinary

authority adverted to the relevant statutory framework

governing the manufacture and sale of Neera. The State

Government itself has framed the Bihar Neera (Unfermented

Juice of Palms) Rules, 2017, regulating the tapping of coconut,

palmyra, date and other palm trees and permitting the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

16/17

manufacture and sale of Neera through a licensing mechanism.

The existence of the said statutory framework itself

demonstrates that unfermented palm juice is separately

recognised and regulated under law.

30. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the charge framed

against the petitioner is vague and, prima facie, contrary to the

medical evidence available on record. The witnesses examined

during the inquiry have also failed to establish the charge of

consumption of alcohol. Furthermore, the Presenting Officer

failed to produce the breath analyser report or examine the

person who conducted the alleged test. Consequently, the

findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are wholly perverse and

unsupported by legally admissible evidence. The order of

punishment passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of

such findings is, therefore, unsustainable both in law and on

facts.

31. Accordingly, the order of dismissal contained in

Memo No. 2358 dated 29.05.2020, passed by Respondent No. 5,

is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellate order contained

in Memo No. 391 dated 29.04.2021, passed by Respondent No.

4, as well as the order passed in memorial contained in Memo

No. 413 dated 21.07.2023 by Respondent No. 3, being

Patna High Court CWJC No.12279 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026

17/17

consequential in nature, cannot survive independently and are

also hereby quashed and set aside.

32. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

33. The consequential benefits shall follow in

accordance with law.

34. There shall be no order as to cost(s).

rohit/-

(Harish Kumar, J)

AFR/NAFR NAFR

CAV DATE 09-07-2026

Uploading Date 17-07-2026

Transmission Date