Departmental dismissal may stand where admission and witness testimony independently establish intoxication and misconduct.

Jafir Ansari, a Hawaldar posted at Bihar Special Armed Police-4, was accused of abusing female constables while intoxicated. An FIR was registered under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and a departmental proceeding followed.

The Enquiry Officer found the charge proved after examining witnesses and documents; the petitioner had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Commandant dismissed him from service, and the DIG and Director General of Police rejected his appeal and memorial, respectively.

In his writ petition, the petitioner disputed the allegation and challenged, among other matters, reliance on the Breath Analyzer report. The respondents relied on his admission before the Special Judge, Excise, that he had consumed liquor, his payment of the fine, and the evidence in the departmental inquiry.

1. Whether the dismissal order should be set aside on the ground that the charge of abusing the constables while intoxicated was not adequately established, including because the Breath Analyzer report was insufficient

2. Whether the dismissal, appellate and memorial orders disclosed a procedural irregularity or other basis for interference in writ jurisdiction

The charge arose under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The Court assessed the departmental finding by reference to the inquiry record, including witness and documentary evidence, the petitioner’s opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and his response to the second show-cause notice.

It did not rely on a cited precedent or articulate a broader test for judicial review; it held that the petitioner’s objection to the Breath Analyzer report did not assist him where intoxication was also supported by his admission before the Special Judge and the inquiry witnesses’ evidence.

The Court found that the inquiry did not rest solely on the Breath Analyzer report. Six witnesses and eight documents were considered, and witnesses supported the allegations that the petitioner abused the constables while intoxicated; the petitioner had an opportunity to cross-examine them.

His admission before the Special Judge that he had consumed liquor, followed by his payment of the imposed fine, further supported the finding of intoxication.

The Court therefore found the petitioner’s reliance on departmental circulars and prior decisions concerning sole reliance on Breath Analyzer results inapposite. It also found no procedural irregularity and considered the appeal and memorial orders reasoned and based on relevant material.

The dismissal from service and the orders rejecting the petitioner’s appeal and memorial were not set aside.