Contemporaneous breath analyzer results outweigh delayed forensic reports in establishing on-duty intoxication misconduct.

The applicant, a Mail Loco Pilot (MLP) with the South Central Railway, was issued a major penalty charge memorandum on 04.05.2015 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968

On 09.05.2015, following the completion of his duty, the applicant tested "positive" for alcohol content in two consecutive Breath Analyzer (BA) tests (52mg/100ML and 45mg/100ML)

A subsequent blood sample, collected 3.5 hours later and analyzed by a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) 11 days later, showed "No Alcohol"

The Disciplinary Authority (DA) initially imposed a penalty of Compulsory Retirement on 27.01.2016

On 02.02.2017, the Appellate Authority (AA) modified the penalty to reduction in rank to Loco Pilot (Goods) for five years with cumulative effect and loss of seniority

The Revising Authority (RA) upheld this modified punishment on 19.05.2022

The applicant challenged these orders, alleging procedural lapses, bias, and failure to consider the negative FSL report

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically regarding the Inquiry Officer’s alleged failure to comply with Rule 9(21) of the Rules of 1968

2. Whether the negative FSL blood report overrides the positive Breath Analyzer results in determining the applicant's misconduct

3. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse or based on no evidence, justifying judicial interference

Rule 9 and Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which govern the procedure for imposing major penalties and the examination of the delinquent employee

"Revised Policy (2012) of Drunkenness on Duty" (Railway Board letter dated 02.11.2012), which mandates BA tests for running staff and stipulates that scientific FSL proof is not mandatory for departmental action

Principles established in Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India (SLP(C) 10499/2022) and Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh (CA 3663/2023), which restrict judicial review to the decision-making process and exclude a re-appreciation of evidence unless findings are perverse or based on "no evidence"

The Tribunal held that the disciplinary process complied with the principles of natural justice and statutory rules.

It rejected the applicant's contention regarding Rule 9(21), noting that because the applicant had examined a defense witness and subsequently refused to be examined by the Inquiry Officer when offered the chance, the mandatory requirement was satisfied

Regarding the conflicting medical evidence, the Tribunal observed that the FSL blood report lost its evidentiary value because the sample was collected after a significant delay (3.5 hours) and tested much later, whereas the BA tests provided contemporaneous evidence

The Tribunal emphasized that in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is the "preponderance of probability," not the strict "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal trials

It further noted that the applicant’s role as a Loco Pilot involved the safety of passengers, making the misconduct grave

It held that the contemporaneous BA test results were sufficient evidence of misconduct and that the modified punishment of reduction in rank was neither disproportionate nor arbitrary

The Tribunal concluded that the scope of judicial review does not allow it to act as an appellate court over the findings of fact reached in a departmental inquiry when supported by some evidence

No costs were awarded