Mere External Examination Not Sufficient To Hold Person Guilty Of Consuming Alcohol: Allahabad HC Reinstates Cop
The Allahabad High Court reinstated a police officer observing that external examination is insufficient to establish he was in intoxicated condition.
The police officer was dismissed for alleged inappropriate behaviour while intoxicated on duty. The Court emphasized the need for blood and urine tests to conclusively determine intoxication.
“In the instant case the petitioner herein was taken to the medical officer who has only externally examined the petitioner and having found the smell of alcohol concluded that the petitioner herein had consumed the alcohol. Therefore, mere external examination is not sufficient proof to hold a person guilty of consuming alcohol and it cannot be concluded that he was in intoxicated condition”, the Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed.
Advocate Satya Prakash Pandey appeared for the Petitioner and Standing Counsel Piyush Srivastava appeared for the Respondent (State).
The Petitioner, a police officer, was reportedly found engaging in inappropriate behaviour under the influence of intoxicants. The DIG discovered the misconduct. The Petitioner was allegedly caught consuming narcotics within the police station premises during duty hours. Disciplinary action was initiated against the officer. The DIG issued a show cause notice, and despite the Petitioner's detailed response, dismissal was ordered. The Petitioner's appeal and review petition were unsuccessful before the State Administrative Services Tribunal (Tribunal). Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the order.
The Court emphasized the importance of proper tests like urine or blood tests to conclusively prove intoxication. The Court referred to Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v State of Maharashtra [(1971) 3 SCC 930]. The Bench reiterated that the smell of alcohol alone is insufficient evidence for intoxication without proper tests. The Bench noted the need for blood or urine samples to support claims of alcohol consumption, and without such evidence, relying solely on external examination is not justified for imposing significant penalties.
The Court noted that there is a lack of conclusive proof of abusive language or misbehaviour by the Petitioner. The Court noted that the departmental inquiry failed to establish the charges of consuming alcohol and misbehaviour. Additionally, the Court observed that a possible dispute between the Counting Clerk and the Petitioner's nephew as a reason for the petitioner's dismissal without substantial proof of misbehaviour. The Court noted the suspicion over the fairness of the show cause notice issued by the DIG, asserting a predetermined inclination towards dismissal, rendering the notice a mere formality. The Bench observed the importance of a fair show cause notice following the inquiry report.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the show cause notice issued by the DIG violates principles of natural justice as it reflects a predetermined mind and fails to provide an opportunity for the Petitioner to respond to the proposed punishment. The Court emphasized that a delinquent should be allowed to respond before a decision on punishment is made.
Additionally, the Court noted that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges of alcohol consumption and misbehaviour, especially considering the lack of proof for these allegations. The Court observed that when disciplinary proceedings violate natural justice, the order of dismissal can be quashed, and a fresh inquiry may be conducted.
Therefore, the Bench observed that severe punishment of termination cannot be justified solely based on previous conduct. The Court emphasized that no charge of misbehaviour due to intoxication was proven during the inquiry, as no urine or blood test was conducted.
Consequently, the Court held the punishment order null and void, as it was issued in violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Court directed for the reinstatement of the Petitioner along with 50% back wages for the period he was out of service within two months from the date of order.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Jai Mangal Ram v State Of UP And 4 Others (2023:AHC:232617-DB)
