Dismissal based solely on alleged intoxication and scuffle is unsustainable without corroborating evidence.

The petitioner, a Bihar Police Constable appointed in 1984, was alleged to have abused and assaulted Constable Upendra Kumar Singh with a knife while intoxicated during the night of 27–28 July 2018.

An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323 and 307 of the IPC and Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The petitioner was suspended and thereafter Departmental Proceeding No. 38 of 2018 was initiated against him; a charge memo was issued on 6 November 2018.

The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding him guilty, following which the Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service on 27 July 2021. His departmental appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General on 28 February 2022.

During the writ proceedings, it was disclosed that the petitioner’s service tenure had otherwise ended on 31 January 2023.

Whether the dismissal order could be sustained when the finding of intoxication was unsupported by a breath-analyser report, blood test, urine test, or other reliable medical evidence?

Whether the finding of misconduct relating to the alleged assault could be sustained when the alleged injured constable did not testify and no injury report was produced during the departmental enquiry?

Whether dismissal from service was grossly disproportionate in the circumstances of the case, particularly where the petitioner had admitted only that a scuffle or heated discussion had occurred?

What relief should be granted after setting aside the disciplinary and appellate orders, especially since the petitioner had already reached the end of his service tenure?

The Court recognised that departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings and may proceed on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Relying on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, as applied in Dharmraj Singh @ Dhamraj Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 14846 of 2021, and subsequently affirmed in LPA No. 1095 of 2024, the Court held that mere smell of alcohol, an unsteady gait, incoherent speech, or even a breath-analyser report, without corroborative blood or urine examination, does not conclusively establish consumption or drunkenness.

The Court also relied on Manoj Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 4181 of 2021, which applied the same evidentiary principle in departmental proceedings.

A disciplinary punishment imposed without adequate evidentiary support or in disregard of material procedural deficiencies may be arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and liable to be set aside; dismissal must also be proportionate to the proved misconduct.

The Court found that the core allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence in the departmental record.

The alleged injured constable neither testified nor produced an injury report, and the enquiry materials did not establish that the petitioner had attacked him with a knife.

Similarly, the allegation of intoxication rested on an alleged smell of liquor, without a breath-analyser report, blood test, urine test, or reliable medical evidence.

Applying the principle in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani, the Court held that such material was insufficient to establish intoxication even on the departmental standard of preponderance of probabilities.

The Court further noted that the petitioner’s admission in appeal was limited to the occurrence of a heated discussion or scuffle and did not amount to an admission of the charged assault or intoxication.

In the absence of proof of the principal allegations, and considering the petitioner’s long service, dismissal was held to be extremely excessive and disproportionate.

The disciplinary and appellate authorities had therefore failed to properly evaluate the absence of essential evidence and had imposed punishment on an unsustainable basis.

It held that the findings could not be sustained in the absence of the alleged injured witness’s testimony, an injury report, and reliable evidence of intoxication.

The matter was remanded to the competent Superintendent of Police to pass a fresh order within 90 days from the date of production or receipt of the judgment, after considering the evidentiary deficiencies and the limited admission regarding the scuffle.

The Court directed that no separate order was necessary on the petitioner’s pending memorial before the Director General of Police.

It did not grant an unconditional direction for reinstatement or consequential monetary benefits.