“…the disciplinary authority completely overlooked the crucial fact that the charge framed against the petitioner was confined to the allegation of consumption of alcohol and creating nuisance under its influence. No charge whatsoever relating to the consumption of toddy had ever been framed,” the court said in its July 17 order.

Argument, breathalyser test, dismissal

The petitioner, who claimed to have joined the service in 1986, claimed that was working as PTC (writer/constable) at Pakribarawan Police Station in Nawada district in November 2019 when he was accused of the offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The FIR alleged that a police officer on patrolling duty noticed two persons engaged in a heated argument at the police station gate. On noticing the informant and other police personnel, both men tried to flee but were apprehended.

Justice Harish Kumar noted that the witnesses examined during the inquiry failed to establish the charge of alcohol intake.

The persons were identified as Ratnakar Pandit and the present petitioner. They were subjected to a breath analyser test, which allegedly confirmed that they had consumed ‘alcohol’. The petitioner was then examined by a medical officer at a health centre, who is said to have recorded that a smell of toddy came from the petitioner’s mouth.

The petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceedings were initiated against him, during which he claimed that he had consumed toddy on the advice of a medical practitioner for the treatment of an illness. The constable added that he had earned several commendations for meritorious service, and had maintained an unblemished record throughout his career.

However, the disciplinary authority was dissatisfied with his explanation and dismissed him from service on May 29, 2020. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the authority concerned, but it was also rejected during the pendency of this case in July 2023.

‘Medical opinion ignored’

The petitioner, represented by advocate Sanjay Kumar Gir, submitted that the medical officer who examined him recorded in his report that the smell of toddy came from the petitioner’s mouth. He added that despite such clear medical opinion, the disciplinary authority proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner had consumed alcohol, solely based on an alleged breath analyser test.

It was further argued that despite the petitioner’s request, the medical practitioner who had allegedly advised him to consume toddy to treat his ailment was not examined. Placing reliance upon the Bihar Nira (Unfermented Juice of Palm) Rules, 2017, Gir submitted that toddy intake is neither prohibited nor punishable.

Standing counsel Basrul Khan submitted that according to the breath analyser test, the petitioner was found to be under the influence of liquor at the time of the incident. He said toddy falls within the definition of country/traditional liquor under the relevant section of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and is prohibited, which means that the petitioner’s argument that he had consumed toddy on medical advice does not improve his case.

Dismissal unsustainable: HC

Pointing out that the disciplinary authority failed to discharge its obligation while passing the dismissal order, the high court found that they “merely observed” that even if the petitioner’s defence that he had consumed toddy was accepted, such consumption was “prohibited” under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and he was liable to be dismissed from service.

The court noted that the witnesses examined during the inquiry failed to establish the charge of alcohol intake. The presenting officer also failed to produce the breath analyser report or examine the person who allegedly conducted the said test.

“Consequently, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are wholly perverse and unsupported by legally admissible evidence. The order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of such findings is, therefore, unsustainable both in law and on facts,” the court added.