Patna High Court
Avadhesh Prasad Singh @ Avadhesh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The court held that the dismissal order stands as the petitioner’s arrest and possession of illegal liquor, even without conclusive proof of consumption, justified the departmental action.
Summary
The petitioner, a police constable, was arrested on 9 September 2023 for alleged intoxication and possession of 1.250 ml of country‑made liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He was suspended, a departmental inquiry was conducted, and on 31 January 2024 he was dismissed from service, an order that was upheld on appeal. The petitioner challenged the dismissal by writ, arguing that no blood or urine test was performed and that breath or observational evidence is not conclusive, relying on earlier case law. The State contended that the mere possession of illicit liquor justified the criminal case and disciplinary action. The Court held that, despite the lack of proof of consumption, the petitioner was arrested while in possession of illegal liquor and, as a constable, was subject to departmental dismissal, and therefore refused to interfere. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether dismissal of a police constable on the basis of alleged consumption of liquor without medical evidence is valid.
- Whether breath or observational evidence can constitute conclusive proof of alcohol consumption for disciplinary purposes.
- Whether mere possession of illicit liquor justifies dismissal from service.
- Whether the appellate order upholding the dismissal should be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 37(b)
Subjects
- dismissal
- departmental inquiry
- police constable
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- alcohol consumption evidence
- breath analyzer
- possession of illicit liquor
- certiorari
- mandamus
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1353 of 2025
======================================================
Avadhesh Prasad Singh @ Avadhesh Singh S/o Tarani Prasad Singh, R/o
House No.- 32, Sherullahpur ( Nand Gaon ), L.B.S. Nagar, P.S.- Shastri
Nagar, Patna, L.B.S. Nagar, Dist.- Patna, Bihar- 800023, worked as
Constable- 724, East Champaran at Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bettiah, Bihar.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
5. The Superintendent of Police-cum-Disciplinary Authority, East Champaran
at Motihari.
6. The Enquiry Officer -cum-S.H.O., Pakadidayal P.S., East Champaran.
7. The S.H.O., Rajiv Nagar Police Station, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
5 07-01-2026 The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
praying for the following reliefs:-
a.) To issue an appropriate writ
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
dismissal order bearing Motihari Ziladesh
No -178/2024, gyapank 294 dated
31.01.2024 passed in Motihari District
Departmental proceeding no 04/2024 issued
under signature of Superintendent of police,
East Champaran at Motihari whereby and
whereunder petitioner has been dismissed
Patna High Court CWJC No.1353 of 2025(5) dt.07-01-2026
2/5
from service on the last date of his retirement
b.) To issue an appropriate writ
in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to grant all financial and
consequential relief from the date of his
suspension till the date of attainment of the
age of superannuation and also to pay all his
pensionary benefit.
c.) To issue an appropriate writ
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
appellate order bearing Gyapank 462 dated
19.02.2025 passed in Motihari district
departmental proceeding No. 04/2024 under
Signature of DIG, Champaran Region,
Bettiah upholding the dismissal order passed
by SP Motihari whereby and whereunder
petitioner has been dismissed from service
on last date of his retirement.
d.) Pass any other or further
order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
2. Factual aspect of the case is that on 9 th September,
2023, a case under Section 30(a)/37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016 was registered against the petitioner in
Patna High Court CWJC No.1353 of 2025(5) dt.07-01-2026
3/5
Rajiv Nagar Police Station, being Case No. 600/2023, dated 9th
September, 2023 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was
found in intoxicated condition consuming liquor and
countrymade liquor measuring about 1.250ml was seized from
his possession. The petitioner was arrested and in view of the
institution of a criminal case the petitioner, being a constable of
police, was initially suspended and a departmental inquiry was
held. The departmental inquiry was culminated on 31st January,
2024 and on the basis of the report of the departmental inquiry,
the petitioner was dismissed from his service under the
signature of the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at
Motihari.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority which was also dismissed.
4. The appellate order is under challenge in the instant
writ petition.
5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner refers
to an earlier Bench’s decision in the case of Dharmraj Singh Vs
the State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 14846 of 2021, dated
9th May, 2024, wherein, this Court held that Breath Analyzer
Report is not a conclusive proof of consuming the liquor by a
person. In Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1353 of 2025(5) dt.07-01-2026
4/5
Maharashtra reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that no conclusion with regard to
consumption of alcohol by a person can be made on the facts
that the petitioner’s breath was smelling of alcohol, that his gait
was unsteady, that his speech was incoherent and that his pupils
were dilated. The consumption of alcohol can only be
ascertained by way of blood and urine test of a person suspected
to have consumed alcohol.
6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that after arrest, the petitioner was not examined
medically and sample of blood and urine of the petitioner were
not tested. Therefore, applying the ratio in Bachubhai’s case,
the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner ought to be
rejected.
7. The learned Advocate on behalf of the State, on the
other hand, submits referring to the counter affidavit that the
petitioner was not implicated in a criminal case under the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for consumption of liquor,
which is prohibited in the State of Bihar. The petitioner was also
found in possession of 1.250ml of countrymade liquor and the
said countrymade liquor was seized from his possession.
8. The seizure list has been brought in record. It is found
Patna High Court CWJC No.1353 of 2025(5) dt.07-01-2026
5/5
from the seizure list that countrymade liquor measuring about
1.250ml was recovered from the petitioner, for illegal
possession of countrymade liquor, he is liable to prosecuted
under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2016.
9. Even if it is, prima facie, considered that the
respondents or the investigating agency failed to produce
adequate evidence in support of consumption of countrymade
liquor by the petitioner, it is not disputed that he was arrested
while in possession of countrymade liquor.
10. Therefore, a criminal case was instituted against the
petitioner and the petitioner being a constable is also a member
of law enforcing agency.
11. Considering such aspect of the matter, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the order impugned, dated 31 st
January, 2024.
12. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
Jyoti Kumari/-
U
Checking your session…