Patna High Court
Jitendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 8 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 3540 of 2023
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar Son of Bajrangi Singh, Resident of Village- Manhauli
Akhtiyarpur, P.S. Bikram, District- Patna, Bihar- 801104
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The D.I.G. of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police, Central Zone, Patna.
4. The Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police-5, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GP V
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-04-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner being
aggrieved with the order dated 04.06.2021 (Annexure 9) passed by
the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police - 5, Patna whereby
and whereunder the services of the petitioner have been dismissed.
Also challenged the order dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure 11) passed
by the Appellate Authority and also order dated 27.01.2023
(Annexure 14) whereby the Memorial submitted by the petitioner
has been rejected by the authorities.
2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as Bal Aarakchi on compassionate ground.
Subsequently, on the allegation of consuming liquor, charge was
Patna High Court CWJC No.3540 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
2/5
framed against the petitioner and on the basis of Enquiry Report,
the Disciplinary Authority, vide impugned order dated 04.06.2021,
dismissed the services of the petitioner. The Appeal as well as the
Memorial filed by the petitioner have also been rejected. Hence,
this petition.
3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Enquiry Officer arrived on the conclusion only on the
basis of Breath Analyzer Report which is not a conclusive report
for consumption of alcohol. Unless and until the blood and urine
of the person is examined, it cannot be assumed that he consumed
alcohol. In this case, no such medical examination has been done
with respect to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the
counsel on the judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed in CWJC No
3019 of 2022 by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Nand Kishore Murmu -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others.
4 Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that at the time when the petitioner was caught, he was
tested through Breath Analyzer Machine and it was found that he
consumed liquor and total 11.6 mg/100 ml alcohol was found in
his breath. Taking into consideration the said Breath Analyzer
Report, the Enquiry Officer rightly arrived at the conclusion that
Patna High Court CWJC No.3540 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
3/5
charge levelled against the petitioner has been duly proved. Thus,
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which has been
affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Authority who
passed the order in the Memorial, is in accordance with the
evidence available on record.
5 I have heard learned counsel for both the parties,
perused the Enquiry Report and other documents as well as the
counter affidavit submitted by the State.
6 On perusal of the Enquiry Report (Annexure A
annexed with the counter affidavit submitted by the learned
counsel for the State), it clearly shows that for proving the charge
levelled against the petitioner, total seven witnesses were
examined by the Department. Most of the witnesses have stated
that at the time of incident, the petitioner was caught and taken to
the Police Station and was tested through Breath Analyzer. Taking
into consideration the report of Breath Analyzer, the Enquiry
Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and it was
held by him that petitioner was found in intoxicated condition.
7 Dealing with the issue, a coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Nand Kishore Murmu (supra), taking into
consideration the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani -Versus- The State
Patna High Court CWJC No.3540 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
4/5
of Maharashtra, reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930, held that the
Breath Analyzer Report is not a conclusive report of consumption
of liquor by a person. It can only be ascertained by way of blood
and urine test of a person suspected of consuming alcohol. In the
supplementary counter affidavit, the respondent-State categorically
admitted the fact that no blood or urine test of the petitioner with
regard to the consumption of liquor was done by the Investigating
Officer of the case. Thus, it is quite clear that the Enquiry Officer,
only on the basis of Breath Analyzer Report, arrived on the
conclusion that charge levelled against the petitioner has been
proved. Since no blood or urine test was medically tested by the
Medical Officer, therefore, only on the basis of report of Breath
Analyzer, it cannot be said that the petitioner had consumed
alcohol. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellant
Authority and the Authority, who decided the Memorial, did not
consider the said aspect.
8 Therefore, the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority (Annexure 9) as well as the order dated
30.11.2021
(Annexure 11) and also the order dated 27.01.2023
(Anexure 14)) passed by the Director General of Police in the
Memorial are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, all the orders are
hereby quashed and set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3540 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
9 The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to
resume his duties with all consequential monetary benefits.
10 However, the petitioner will not get any financial
benefit during the period when he was dismissed from service and
discharged no official duty.
11 The reinstatement of the petitioner will be done
within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of order of this
Court.
12 With the above observation, this writ petition is
allowed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
