Patna High Court
Girjanandan SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The order imposing pension deduction and salary denial is quashed as illegal, disproportionate, and procedurally defective.
Summary
Girjanandan Sharma, a retired Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police, was arrested in 2018 for alleged consumption of prohibited liquor and subsequently dismissed six days before his superannuation. A departmental inquiry found him guilty of gross misconduct and, under the Bihar Pension Rules, ordered a 20% pension deduction for five years and denial of salary beyond suspension allowance. The petitioner challenged the penalty as disproportionate, argued that the charge‑sheet was improperly issued by an officer not authorized under Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants Rules, and contended that a breath‑analyzer report alone cannot prove drunkenness, citing a Supreme Court precedent and a 2022 police circular. The High Court held that the department incurred no financial loss, the penalty was excessive, the procedural requirements were not met, and the breath‑analyzer reliance violated the circular. Consequently, the court quashed the punitive order, restored full salary and benefits, and directed repayment of any deducted pension amounts.
Issues considered
- The proportionality of a 20% pension deduction for five years and denial of salary for alleged consumption of prohibited liquor.
- Whether the departmental inquiry complied with Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 regarding issuance of a charge‑sheet.
- The admissibility of a breath‑analyzer report as sole evidence of drunkenness in disciplinary proceedings.
- The jurisdiction of the court to review the departmental order under the CCA Rules and Bihar Pension Rules.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 17(3)
- Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. 43(B)
Subjects
- departmental misconduct
- pension deduction
- proportionality
- procedural fairness
- breath analyzer
- excise law
- police service
- judicial review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3195 of 2025
======================================================
Girjanandan Sharma Son of Late Jagdish Sharma, Resident of Village-
Kamtachak, P.O- Mittanchak, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Additional Director General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police, Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police (North
Division), Muzaffarpur.
5. Inquiry Officer-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police- cum- Commandant,
C Company, Bihar Special Armed Police, XII, Bhim Nagar, Supaul (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
Mr. Chetan Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (6)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
3 29-01-2026 The petitioner is a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police. His service came to an end on superannuation w.e.f. 31 st
January, 2019. While he was in service, he was arrested by a
raid party with the allegation of consumption of prohibited
alcohol within the jurisdiction of the police station where he was
posted. After such arrest on 23rd July, 2018, Excise Case No. C
I-477/2018 under Section 37(B) of the Excise and Prohibition
Act, 2016 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner
was arrested and taken to custody.
2. The above-mentioned act being treated as
Patna High Court CWJC No.3195 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
2/5
professional misconduct. A departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner. The Commandant of Bihar
Armed Police, Saharsa submitted Memorandum of Charge
against the petitioner and on conclusion of departmental
proceeding, he was dismissed from service six days before his
superannuation on 25th January, 2019.
3. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal
which was subsequently allowed and the Inquiry Authority was
directed to give opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine
the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. As the petitioner had
retired from service in the meantime, the departmental
proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Section 43(B)
of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. In the said inquiry
proceeding, the petitioner was found committing gross
misconduct and 20 per cent of his pension was directed to be
deducted for five years. It was further directed that he would not
be paid balance salary except the suspension allowance during
the period suspension. The petitioner challenged the said order
dated 27th June, 2023 in an appeal which was dismissed by the
appellate authority. Hence, the instant writ petition.
4. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
petitioner has assailed the decision of the penalty of inquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.3195 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
3/5
authority, subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority on
the ground that the punishment of deduction of 20 per cent of
pension amount for five years and direction of non-payment of
salary beyond the suspension allowance are disproportionate to
the alleged misconduct because even assuming that the
petitioner consumed prohibited liquor, it may be an instance of
moral turpitude but such act of the petitioner did not cause any
pecuniary loss to the police department. Therefore, recovery of
money from the pension of the petitioner is arbitrary and
disproportionate to the charge leveled against him.
5. Secondly, it is contended by the learned Advocate
on behalf of the petitioner that the departmental inquiry against
the petitioner is itself bad in law because Rule 17(3) of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal)
Rules, 2005 lays down a mandatory provision of submission of
charge-sheet against a delinquent employee by the disciplinary
authority or the appointing authority. Charge-sheet having been
filed by the commandant, who is neither a disciplinary authority
or an appointing authority, is bad in law.
6. Third limb of argument of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner is that the raiding party found the
petitioner in drunken condition on the basis of Breath Analyzer
Patna High Court CWJC No.3195 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
4/5
Report. This Court relying on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bahubhai Hassanali Karyani Vs. The State
of Mahrashtra reported in 1971 3 SCC 930 held in series of
cases that Breath Analyzer Report is not a conclusive test to
hold drunkenness of a person.
7. Learned counsel on behalf of the State, on the other
hand, submits that the second inquiry was done in accordance
with law following the provisions contained in CCA Rules read
with Bihar Pension Rules. Therefore, the order passed by the
departmental authority cannot be held to be a subject of judicial
review.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties
and on careful perusal of entire materials available on record,
this Court agrees with the submission made by the learned
Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that for the alleged
act of the petitioner, the police department did not incurred any
financial loss. It may be a fact that when a police officer was
apprehended by the officers and staffs of Excise Department on
the allegation of consumption of prohibited liquor, it laid to a
bad impression of the police department in the estimation of the
general public. However, for such alleged act, the delinquent
employee cannot be charged with financial loss.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3195 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
5/5
9. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner
has filed a rejoinder to the writ petition yesterday i.e. on 28th
January, 2026 annexing a circular bearing no. 294, dated 20th
May, 2022 issued by the Deputy Inspector General Personnel
Department of Police, Bihar, Patna. The said circular clearly
states that no police personnel can be held guilty in a
departmental proceeding on the basis of Breath Analyzer Report
alone. The said circular dated 20th May, 2022 was violated by
the police department itself by passing the impugned order.
10. For the reasons stated above, I am not in a
position to agree with the findings of the respondent-authority.
The order of punishment passed against the petitioner on 27 th
June, 2023 is quashed and set aside.
11. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed on contest,
however, without cost.
12. If any amount is deducted from the pension of the
petitioner, the said amount shall be paid back to him. Moreover,
he is entitled to get full salary and other benefits during his
period of suspension.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
Jyoti Kumari/-
U
Checking your session…