Breath analyser report lacks conclusive probative value in departmental proceedings without corroborative evidence or medical testimony.

The respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector with 32 years of service, was arrested following a raid at Motihari Police Line on allegations of consuming liquor.

A breath analyzer test was conducted, and Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 59/2020 was registered under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were initiated, leading to his dismissal on 02.07.2020.

The respondent contended he was suffering from tuberculosis and the smell of alcohol was due to medicinal cough syrup, but this defense was not considered.

A learned Single Judge set aside the dismissal, prompting the State to file this Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether a breath analyzer report, without corroborative blood/urine tests or oral testimony from the conducting medical officer, constitutes "conclusive proof" of alcohol consumption in a departmental inquiry.

2. Whether the failure of the Inquiry Officer to consider the delinquent’s medical defense (tuberculosis medication) and the absence of a Presenting Officer vitiated the disciplinary proceedings.

Section 75(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which stipulates that a breath analyzer report is admissible as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.

The precedent Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 3 SCC 930 established that smell of alcohol and unsteady gait are not definitive proof of drunkenness without chemical analysis.

The standard of judicial review defined in Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612 allows interference if findings are based on "no evidence," conjectures, or are patently perverse.

The Court observed that while the breath analyzer report was admissible under Section 75(3), its probative value in this case was nil because the doctor who prepared it was never examined, nor was the report discussed in the Inquiry Report.

The witnesses only spoke of the "smell" of alcohol, which the Court deemed insufficient for a finding of guilt.

The disciplinary authority ignored the respondent’s medical defense regarding tuberculosis medication, which could explain the alcoholic scent.

The Court reasoned that since the medical report was not proved and no blood/urine tests were conducted, the finding of guilt was based on "conjectures and surmises" rather than legal evidence.

The absence of a Presenting Officer during the proceedings further indicated a violation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005.

The Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order quashing the dismissal; the respondent, having reached superannuation, was held entitled to all retirement dues and financial benefits for the period from 16.01.2020 until his retirement.