The Allahabad High Court reinstated a police officer, noting that assessing intoxication solely through external examination lacked sufficient grounds.

The police officer faced dismissal due to alleged on-duty misconduct while intoxicated. The Court stressed the necessity of blood and urine tests to accurately establish intoxication.

The Court, including Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Anish Kumar Gupta, highlighted that relying solely on external examination, which detected the smell of alcohol, isn't adequate evidence to establish guilt in alcohol consumption or intoxication. They emphasized the insufficiency of this method to confirm an intoxicated state.

Advocate Satya Prakash Pandey represented the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Piyush Srivastava represented the Respondent (State) in the proceedings.

The Petitioner, a police officer, was allegedly involved in inappropriate conduct while under the influence of intoxicants, reportedly detected by the DIG. The officer was purportedly found consuming narcotics during duty hours within the police station premises. This led to disciplinary action, including a show cause notice. Despite a detailed response from the Petitioner, dismissal was ultimately ordered. Unsuccessful appeals and a review petition before the State Administrative Services Tribunal prompted the Petitioner to approach the High Court via a Writ Petition to contest the order.

The Court stressed the necessity of conclusive tests like blood or urine examinations to establish intoxication, referencing the precedent of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v State of Maharashtra [(1971) 3 SCC 930]. Emphasizing that the smell of alcohol alone isn't adequate evidence, the Bench reiterated the importance of proper tests. They highlighted the insufficiency of relying solely on external examination, emphasizing the need for blood or urine samples to substantiate claims of alcohol consumption before imposing significant penalties.

The Court highlighted the absence of conclusive evidence regarding the alleged abusive language or misconduct by the Petitioner. It pointed out the failure of the departmental inquiry to establish charges of alcohol consumption and misbehavior. Additionally, it noted a possible dispute involving the Petitioner's nephew and the Counting Clerk, casting doubt on the grounds for dismissal without substantial proof of misconduct.

The Court expressed suspicion regarding the fairness of the show cause notice issued by the DIG, suggesting a predetermined inclination toward dismissal that undermined the notice's fairness. Stressing the importance of a fair show cause notice post the inquiry report, the Bench underscored the necessity for procedural fairness in such matters.

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. Stressing the necessity for allowing the accused to respond before deciding on punishment, the Court underlined the disproportionality of the dismissal as a penalty given the lack of substantiated evidence for the charges of alcohol consumption and misbehavior. It noted that when disciplinary proceedings violate natural justice, the dismissal order could be invalidated, prompting the possibility of a fresh inquiry.

The Bench concluded that severe termination as a punishment couldn't be justified solely based on past conduct. Emphasizing that no proof of misbehavior due to intoxication was established during the inquiry, given the absence of urine or blood tests, the Court deemed the punishment order null and void for breaching statutory rules and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner's reinstatement along with 50% back wages for the duration of absence within two months from the date of the order.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order.

Case Title: Jai Mangal Ram v State Of UP And 4 Others (2023:AHC:232617-DB)