Patna HC Sets Aside Constable's Dismissal Where No Blood, Urine Test or Injury Report Was Part of Enquiry Record

The Patna High Court set aside the dismissal of a Bihar Police constable with 38 years of service, finding that the departmental enquiry lacked any blood test, urine test, breath analyser report, or testimony from the alleged victim.

The Patna High Court, in a judgment dated 3 August 2026, allowed the writ petition of Tilak Dhari Singh, a constable appointed to Bihar Police in 1984 who served for over 38 years before being dismissed from service in July 2021. Justice Dr. Anshuman, sitting singly, set aside both the dismissal order and the appellate order affirming it, after finding that the disciplinary authority had imposed the major punishment without any injury report, breath analyser report, blood test, urine test, or testimony from the alleged victim. The matter has been remanded to the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha, East Champaran, Motihari, with a direction to pass a fresh order within 90 days.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Tilak Dhari Singh was posted at Shrawani Mela under Banka District as Motihari Sipahi No. 926 when, on 28 July 2018 at around 2:40 a.m., an FIR was registered as Chandan (Banka) P.S. Case No. 124 of 2018. The FIR alleged that he had abused and assaulted a fellow Sipahi, Upendra Kumar Singh, while under intoxication, and that he had been sent to judicial custody. Sections 341, 323, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 were invoked.

Following the FIR, the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari suspended the petitioner on 1 September 2018. The suspension was revoked on 2 November 2018 and Departmental Proceeding No. 38 of 2018 was initiated. A memo of charge was served on 6 November 2018 under Memo No. 3019. The petitioner filed his reply before the Enquiry Officer on 29 March 2019 and sought permission to produce defence witnesses, but that request was refused.

The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty and submitted an enquiry report dated 24 June 2021. The Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service on 27 July 2021 under Bagaha District Order No. 843 of 2021 vide Memo No. 2254. The petitioner appealed on 3 September 2021 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Range, Betiya. The appeal was dismissed on 28 February 2022 under Memo No. 386. A memorial was also filed before the Director General of Police, but no order was passed on it.

The petitioner then filed C.W.J.C. No. 10213 of 2022 before the Patna High Court, seeking to quash the charge dated 6 November 2018, the enquiry report dated 24 June 2021, the dismissal order dated 27 July 2021, and the appellate order dated 28 February 2022, along with reinstatement and consequential monetary benefits.

What the Enquiry Record Actually Contained

The court's examination of the enquiry record revealed a striking evidential deficit. Three official witnesses were examined during Departmental Proceeding No. 38 of 2018, but none of them deposed anything against the petitioner, and none were related to the incident in question. The FIR itself was not produced as evidence before the Enquiry Officer. Nor was any injury report or medical report.

The alleged victim, Sipahi Upendra Kumar Singh, did not come forward at any stage of the departmental proceeding and did not adduce any evidence. The charge-sheet, according to the petitioner's counsel, was submitted against him solely on the basis of a doctor's report, without any breath analyser test, blood test, or urine test having been conducted. The court noted that the Conducting Officer's finding of intoxication rested entirely on the alleged smell of liquor.

The State's counter affidavit defended the proceeding on the ground that it was initiated by a competent authority strictly in accordance with law, and that the principle of preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, governs departmental proceedings. The State also contended that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can run simultaneously and are independent of each other. The court acknowledged these positions but found them insufficient to justify the outcome.

One additional fact emerged during proceedings: the petitioner's service tenure had already concluded on 31 January 2023, meaning the dismissal on 27 July 2021 had cut short a service period that was in any case approaching its end.

The Legal Position on Proof of Intoxication

Justice Dr. Anshuman placed reliance on a consistent line of Patna High Court authority applying the Supreme Court's decision in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that no conclusion regarding consumption of alcohol can be drawn merely from the fact that a person's breath smelled of alcohol, that his gait was unsteady, that his speech was incoherent, or that his pupils were dilated. The Court further held that a person could smell of alcohol without being under the influence of drink, and that consumption of alcohol can only be ascertained by blood and urine testing. Since neither test had been conducted, the Supreme Court declined to hold that the accused was drunk at the relevant time.

The Patna High Court's single bench decision in Dharmraj Singh @ Dhamraj Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 14846 of 2021, decided on 9 May 2024, applied this principle directly to a departmental dismissal. In that case, a Bihar Police constable had been arrested on an allegation that he consumed alcohol in Barrack No. 3 of Reserve Police Line, Motihari. The arresting officer had not arranged for a superficial examination by other inmates of the barrack and had not conducted any blood or urine test. The single bench quashed the dismissal orders at three levels, holding that the disciplinary and appellate authorities had failed to consider the absence of any scientific test and that the dismissal suffered from manifest arbitrariness and violation of natural justice.

That judgment was challenged before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 1095 of 2024, decided on 26 February 2026. The State argued that Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani applied only to criminal trials, where guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and had no application to departmental proceedings governed by the preponderance of probabilities standard. The Division Bench disagreed. It found that the appellants had been unable to demonstrate how Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani did not apply, and affirmed that drunkenness cannot be conclusively proved without a blood or urine test, even in departmental proceedings. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.

A coordinate bench in Manoj Kumar Thakur v. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 4181 of 2021, decided on 25 June 2025, also followed the same line, quashing a dismissal that rested solely on a breath analyser test without any blood or urine test having been administered, and placing reliance on Manju Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 2590 of 2022, as well as on Munna Lal v. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 399, and the Patna High Court's decision in Jawahar Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2019(2) PLJR 156.

The Court's Reasoning in the Present Case

Justice Dr. Anshuman expressed open surprise at the disciplinary authority's conclusions. The court observed that the punishment had been imposed without any material on record: the alleged injured person had not come forward, no injury report was available, and nothing had been produced to establish that the petitioner was under intoxication.

Examining the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner before the DIG, the court noted that the only fact the petitioner himself accepted was that a scuffle had taken place between him and Upendra Kumar Singh. But that admission, the court said, was not even part of the formal record of the departmental proceeding. The court held that imposing the punishment of dismissal in such circumstances was “extremely disproportionate and unacceptable.”

The court also addressed the pending memorial. Since it was setting aside the substantive orders, it directed that there was no necessity of passing any order on the memorial.

On the question of proportionality, the court added that even accepting that a scuffle had taken place, the punishment imposed was “extremely excessive.” The direction for remand was framed accordingly: the competent authority was to pass a fresh order taking into account that neither the injury report, nor the testimony of the injured person, nor any breath analyser report, urine test, or blood test formed part of the enquiry record.

Order

Justice Dr. Anshuman allowed C.W.J.C. No. 10213 of 2022 and set aside two orders:

• The dismissal order dated 27 July 2021, issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari, under Memo No. 2254 (Annexure-10); and
• The appellate order dated 28 February 2022, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Range, Betiya, under Memo No. 386 (Annexure-12).

The matter was remanded to the Superintendent of Police, Bagaha, East Champaran, Motihari (Respondent No. 4), with a direction to pass a fresh order within 90 days from the date of production or receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court clarified that the fresh order must be passed after considering that the enquiry record contains none of the medical or forensic material that the charge required, and that the only concession by the petitioner — that a scuffle took place — did not itself form part of the departmental proceeding's record.