Patna High Court
BiharversusDharmraj Singh @ Dhamraj Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The disciplinary dismissal was unsustainable as it was based on conjectural evidence and violated natural‑justice norms, so the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed a single judge's order that set aside the dismissal of constable‑turned‑Assistant Sub‑Inspector Dharmraj Singh, who was terminated for alleged consumption of alcohol in a police barrack. The disciplinary proceedings relied primarily on a doctor's breath‑analyzer report and eyewitness testimony of an alcohol smell, without any blood or urine tests, and ignored Singh's medical evidence that his tuberculosis medication could cause such odor. The High Court examined whether the breath‑analyzer report, though admissible under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, was sufficient proof of consumption and whether the inquiry violated natural‑justice principles by disregarding the respondent's defence. It held that the evidence was conjectural, the inquiry report was perverse and unsupported, and the disciplinary authority acted beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, the court upheld the single judge’s order and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, confirming Singh’s reinstatement and entitlement to retirement benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether a breath‑analyzer report alone, without corroborative blood or urine tests, can substantiate the charge of alcohol consumption in a departmental inquiry.
- Whether the departmental inquiry complied with the principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements of the Bihar Government Servants Rules.
- Whether the disciplinary authority's finding of guilt was based on sufficient evidence or amounted to a perverse decision warranting judicial intervention.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- breath analyzer report
- natural justice
- evidence
- departmental inquiry
- dismissal
- alcohol consumption
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.54 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14846 of 2021
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Range, Bettiah.
5. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari.
6. The Additional Superintendent of Police-cum-Enquiry Officer, Head
Quarter, East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Appellants.
Versus
Dharmraj Singh @ Dhamraj Singh Son of Chanarik Singh, Resident of
Village- Kera, Post- Samser Nagar, Police Station- Daudnagar, District-
Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
For the Respondent : Mr. Upendra Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sanju, Advocate
Mr. Bhaskar Sandilya, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SONI SHRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SONI SHRIVASTAVA)
Date : 09-07-2026
The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed
by the respondents-State/Appellants assailing the order dated
09.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the
writ application has been allowed in favour of the petitioner
/respondent by setting aside the order of his dismissal from
service dated 02.07.2020 and also affirming the order of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
2/10
dismissal dated 30.09.2020 as well as order dated
29.06.2021 dismissing the memorial appeal of
petitioner/respondent. Noticing that the petitioner
/respondent has since retired, a further direction of giving all
his retirement dues and financial benefits during the period
16.01.2020 till the date of his superannuation has been
passed.
2. The facts of the case reveals that the
respondent, after rendering satisfactory service for about
thirty-two years as a constable of police under the Home
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna was promoted to
the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 2020. While
he was posted in the reserved force at Motihari police Line, a
raid was conducted in the Barrack with regard to
consumption of liquor and the respondent was arrested upon
finding that he had consumed liquor and Motihari Town P.S
Case No. 59/2020 was registered against him under Section
37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2018 and departmental proceeding No. 03/2020 was also
initiated against him.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant, has
submitted that the delinquent was given an opportunity to
defend his case and after following due procedure in the
departmental proceeding, the punishment of dismissal was
awarded to the respondent vide range order no. 55 of 2020.
It has been contended that after coming into force of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
3/10
Bihar prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the consumption of
liquor in the State of Bihar is an offence and has also pointed
out that Rule 4 of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct
Rules, 1976 was amended in accordance with the said Act.
4. It is next submitted that the reliance placed by
the learned Single Judge on the judgment of Bachubhai
Hassanalli Karyani V. State of Maharashtra reported
in (1971) 3 SCC 930, would not be applicable in the
instant matter as the standard of proof is different in a
criminal trial vis-à-vis disciplinary proceeding. It has been
pointed out that Section 75(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act clearly emphasizes on the fact that the report of
breath analyzer test shall be admissible as evidence under
the Indian Evidence Act. A reference has also been made to
the judgment of State of Bihar V. Bhagwan Singh
reported in 2026 (3) PLJR 106, especially relying on para-
17 of the said judgment, wherein it has been once again
been reiterated that the breath analyzer report would be
admissible in evidence.
5. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that he was arrested on the pretext of smell of alcohol
coming from his mouth and he was examined only by a
breath analyzer but neither the amount of alcohol was
shown in the report nor he was subjected to any blood or
urine test. The respondent has filed his reply to the show
cause in the departmental proceeding taking a specific plea
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
4/10
that since he was suffering from tuberculosis, he was using
cough syrup and other medicines on account of the same
and has also brought the prescriptions on record. However,
the order of dismissal was passed on total non-consideration
of the same.
6. It is further contended that, besides non-
consideration of the defence of the respondent, also on the
basis of totally vague evidence, he was held guilty of the
charges framed against him by the inquiry report dated
30.05.2020. Learned counsel has further contended that it
has been held by several judgments of this Court that the
breath analyzer test is not a conclusive evidence of
consumption of alcohol. He has referred to the Division
Bench order dated 26.02.2026 of this Court passed in the
case of the State of Bihar Vs. Aswasthama Mahto @
Ashwathama Mahto (L.P.A. No.105 of 2024), wherein
the facts were similar and it was found that a major
punishment of dismissal was imposed on the delinquent
where the allegation was supported only by a report of
doctor on the basis of breath analyzer test and no blood or
urine test was conducted to conclusively establish the
consumption of alcohol.
7. Further, reference has been made to the case
of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra) and reliance
has been placed on paragraphs-4 and 5 of the judgment
which is reproduced as under:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
5/10
“4. …….Dr Kulkarni, who
examined the appellant, based his
conclusion merely on the facts that the
appellant's breath was smelling of alcohol,
that his gait was unsteady, that his speech
was incoherent and that his pupils were
dilated. The doctor had admitted that a
person, placed in the circumstances in
which the appellant was put as a result of
the accident, would be under a nervous
strain and his gait might be unsteady. The
doctor had also admitted that a person
could smell of alcohol without being under
the influence of drinking. No urine test of
the appellant was carried out and
although the blood of the appellant was
sent for chemical analysis, no report of
the analysis was produced by the
prosecution.
5. It seems to us that on this
evidence it cannot be definitely held that
the appellant was drunk at the time the
accident occurred.”
8. It has also been pointed out that the Presenting
Officer was not present in the proceedings which is violative
of Rules-17 & 18 of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and such
plea was also taken in his reply to show casue which was not
addressed.
9. This Court has perused the order of the learned
Single Judge, who, having referred to the case of Bachubhai
Hassanalli Karyani (supra), has held that the breath
analyzer report is not a conclusive proof of consumption of
alcohol and the order of dismissal of the respodnent is an
instance of violation of principles of natural justice because
of non-consideration of medical documents filed by him at
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
6/10
the time of departmental inquiry. On account of the
aforesaid reasons, the learned Single Judge quashed and set
aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent
and also the subsequent appellate order.
10. After having considered the materials on
record, which includes the order of dismissal of the
respondent and the appellate order confirming the same,
the show-cause and its reply as also the inquiry report, the
following facts emerge:
(a) The charge made against the respondent is
based upon the doctor’s report confirming the fact that he
had consumed alcohol but such medical report has not
stood the test of proof by the maker thereof as no doctor
has been examined in this regard nor the said report was
proved by any other witness, coupled with the fact that the
Inquiry Report does not per se refers or discusses, the
doctor’s report, as such no reliance could have been placed
on such report.
(b) The witnesses who have been examined during
inquiry are only on the point of some smell coming out of
the mouth of the respondent leading them to conclude that
he was drunk. However, no witness has claimed to have
seen him drinking and they have rather stated that no
incriminating recovery was made to lend support to alcohol
consumption. Thus, the evidence of the witness are merely
based on conjectures and surmises.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
7/10
(c) Neither the Inquiry Report nor the order of
dismissal reflect any consideration of analysis of the defence
of the respondent that he was a patient of tuberculosis and
was on medication, including cough syrups, which may have
alcohol like smell or content.
11. This Court is thoroughly conscious of the well
established principle that the High Court, while exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
cannot re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at finding of
fact unless the authority below either exceeded his
jurisdiction or acted perversely. But, if there was no
evidence to justify a conclusion of guilt leading to perversity
in the order, the same cannot be ignored or overlooked.
12. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the
judgment of the of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the
case of Deputy General Manager and others vs. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 and
quote paragraphs-24 and 27 thereof:
24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial
review, of the constitutional courts, is an
evaluation of the decision-making process and
not the merits of the decision itself. It is to
ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure
fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may
interfere in the proceedings held against the
delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent
with the rules of natural justice or in violation of
the statutory rules prescribing the mode of
enquiry or where the conclusion or finding
reached by the disciplinary authority is based on
no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such
as no reasonable person would have ever
reached or where the conclusions upon
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
8/10
consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from
patent error on the face of record or based on
no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be
issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review
cannot be extended to the examination of
correctness or reasonableness of a decision of
authority as a matter of fact.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not
applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings.
However, the only requirement of law is that the
allegation against the delinquent must be
established by such evidence acting upon which
a reasonable person acting reasonably and with
objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the
gravity of the charge against the delinquent
employee. It is true that mere conjecture or
surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even
in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
13. In the case at hand, the materials on record go
to show that the doctor’s report (breath analyzer report) has
not been proved in absence of the examination of the doctor
and the conclusion of alcohol consumption only by smell, is
a flawed conclusion. Thus, the nature of evidence which had
led to finding of guilt, on the face of the record, appears to
be based merely on conjectures and surmises and
tantamounts to a case of no evidence and any finding based
thereupon would be patently perverse requiring
interference.
14. The order of the learned Single Judge has taken
into account the fact that violation of natural justice has
occurred on account of non-consideration of the medical
documents filed by the respondent at the time of
departmental inquiry. We totally concur with the view taken
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
9/10
by the learned Single Judge in this respect and hold that the
findings of the inquiry report are arbitrary and improper.
15. So far as the breath analyzer report is
concerned, its admissibility in evidence is one thing, while
its probative and conclusive value stands on a different
footing. In the present case, the said report, although
admissible in evidence as per Section 75(3) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the same never got proved
during the departmental inquiry and there was no other
blood or urine test conducted which could act as a
conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol by the
respondent. As such, the inquiry report as also the order of
dismissal, based solely upon such unproved document,
suffers from the vice of vagueness, bordering on perversity.
16. Thus, taking into account the illegalities
committed in the departmental proceeding and considering
that the order of the disciplinary authority is visited with
perversity, as the same appears to be virtually based on no
evidence and also in total disregard of the defence taken by
the respondent with regard to his medical condition and the
use of medication, we are of the considered view that the
disciplinary action taken against the respondent based on
vitiated inquiry report, would not be legally sustainable. As
the inquiry report is not legally sustainable, the decisions of
both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate
authority can also not be sustained in the eyes of law.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.54 of 2025 dt.09-07-2026
10/10
17. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the
considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same
warrants no interference.
18. Accordingly, the present L.P.A. is dismissed
upholding the order dated 09.05.2024 in C.W.J.C. No. 14846
of 2021.
I agree.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) (Meenakshi Madan Rai, CJ)
Trivedi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 06.07.2026
Uploading Date 09.07.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.