Absence of scientific intoxication tests does not vitiate disciplinary findings based on oral testimony and preponderance of probabilities.

The Petitioner, a Constable/GD in the CRPF since 2001, was served a Memorandum of Charges on 25.10.2021 alleging several acts of misconduct: (i) being found intoxicated and misbehaving with superiors while on sentry duty on 21.06.2021; (ii) leaving a quarantine centre without permission in August 2021; and (iii) unauthorized absence from duty for 11 days following a transfer

A departmental enquiry concluded that the charges were proved

Consequently, the Respondent No. 6 (Commandant, 238 Battalion, CRPF) imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 30.10.2022 under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955

The Petitioner’s subsequent appeals and revisions were rejected by the departmental authorities

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and for reinstatement with back wages

1. Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the denial of a Defence Assistant and non-supply of relevant documents

2. Whether the findings regarding intoxication are sustainable in the absence of scientific or medical evidence like a blood test or breath analyzer

3. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct

The court applied Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, governing disciplinary actions in the Force

For judicial review, the court followed the principle that it does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence and interferes only in cases of procedural irregularity, perversity, or violation of natural justice

Regarding the standard of proof, it applied the doctrine of "preponderance of probabilities" applicable to departmental proceedings rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt"

It further relied on the legal standard that interference with a penalty is only permissible when the punishment shocks the conscience of the court or is outrageously disproportionate

The Court observed that the Petitioner voluntarily declined a Defence Assistant during preliminary proceedings, and since no contemporaneous protest was recorded, the claim of coercion was rejected

On the issue of non-supply of documents, the Court held that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate specific prejudice, as documents relied upon by the department were provided

Regarding intoxication, the Court ruled that scientific evidence (blood/breath tests) is not a mandatory prerequisite in departmental inquiries; oral testimony regarding the Petitioner's physical condition and demeanour was sufficient under the standard of preponderance of probabilities

The Court found the findings were not "no evidence" findings, as the Enquiry Officer considered statements of multiple witnesses and official records

Finally, regarding proportionality, the Court emphasized that in a disciplined force like CRPF, intoxication on sentry duty and repeated indiscipline are grave offenses, justifying the penalty of compulsory retirement despite previous years of service

It held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, natural justice was followed, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse

The Court concluded that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not disproportionate given the gravity of the misconduct in a disciplined armed force

All pending applications were dismissed