“Finding Of Consumption Of Alcohol Based Solely On Breath Analyser Test Is No Evidence In Law”: Patna High Court Reinstates Bihar Military Police Staff Dismissed For Alleged Drunken Conduct

A Single Bench of Justice Harish Kumar observed, “Once the finding of consumption of alcohol is based upon no evidence, the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer itself vitiates in law and thus inadmissible. Hence, based upon such enquiry report, if the petitioner has been inflicted with the order of extreme punishment, the same is wholly unsustainable.”

The Court added, “The impugned order of punishment also does not reflect the application of mind to the defence taken by the petitioner as is required under Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and thus the same is held to be cryptic, and passed without application of mind.”

Advocate Arun Kumar Sinha appeared for the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Sunil Kumar Mandal represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner, employed as a Class IV Barber in the Bihar Military Police, was dismissed from service following allegations that he had caused a nuisance under the influence of alcohol. The proceedings were initiated after a breath analyser test result was recorded during a 2016 incident. An excise case was also registered against him. Based on a departmental enquiry, the authorities passed a dismissal order, which was later affirmed in appeal.

The Petitioner contended that no medical report existed to substantiate the allegation and that the punishment was based solely on the breath analyser result. He submitted that such evidence was not legally conclusive in the absence of blood or urine testing.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court noted that the entire case of the department rested on a single breath analyser reading and lacked corroborative evidence such as a laboratory-confirmed blood or urine analysis. It observed that this failed to meet the evidentiary threshold required for such disciplinary action.

The Court stated, “Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court on innumerable decisions held that for conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol, blood and urine test report is necessary. The breath analyser report is not the conclusive proof and has not been held to be legal proof.”

The Bench noted, “The Enquiry Officer did not refer to any material brought in the enquiry, nor did he apply his independent mind to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, nor dealt with the defence. Rather, he was merely guided by the pendency of the excise case, and the judicial custody of the petitioner.”

The Court noted that there were procedural lapses, including the absence of a properly functioning Presenting Officer, failure to examine independent witnesses, and non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under the 2005 Rules.

The Court observed, “Even the Enquiry Officer did not refer to any evidence of any witness who had seen the petitioner consuming alcohol. The entire proceeding rests only on the breath analyser test which, as repeatedly held, does not constitute legal evidence.”

The Court opined that once the finding of consumption of alcohol is based upon no evidence, the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer itself vitiates in law and thus becomes inadmissible. “Hence, based upon such enquiry report, if the petitioner has been inflicted with the order of extreme punishment, the same is wholly sustainable”, it added.

Holding that the punishment was arbitrary and devoid of legal basis, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the dismissal order. It directed the reinstatement of the Petitioner and left it open to the authorities to consider consequential benefits in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Manoj Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4181 of 2021)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Arun Kumar Sinha, Ashutosh Krishna

Respondents: Standing Counsel (Deputy Inspector General of Police) Sunil Kumar Mandal, Advocate Arjun Prasad