Introduction
This case, heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, involves a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Manju Devi, is the wife of the late Prabhakar Kumar Singh, and she is challenging the dismissal of her husband from his employment. The case revolves around allegations of alcohol consumption and the subsequent disciplinary actions taken by the authorities.
Parties Involved
Background
The original writ petitioner, Prabhakar Kumar Singh (now deceased), was working in the office of the S.D.O. in Nirmali P.S. On February 5, 2018, he was apprehended by the S.H.O. of the said police station. The allegation was that he had contravened Section 37(a) and 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Following his arrest, he was in judicial custody for a few days.
In accordance with the service rules, Mr. Singh was suspended from service because he was incarcerated for more than 48 hours. He was later released on bail, and his suspension was revoked, allowing him to rejoin his service. However, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him based on the same allegation that he had consumed alcohol in violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Simultaneously, a criminal case was also filed, which was still pending at the time of the writ petition.
District Magistrate's Order
The District Magistrate of Supaul, after conducting the disciplinary proceeding, issued an order on January 11, 2020 (communicated on January 15, 2020), which detailed the findings. The order stated that Mr. Singh was found to be under the influence of alcohol in Nirmali. A breathalyzer test showed an alcohol level of 102mg/100ml, and a medical examination at the primary health center in Nirmali confirmed the consumption of alcohol. Mr. Singh was arrested under Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and was sent to judicial custody.
The District Magistrate's order also mentioned that Mr. Singh's explanation to the charges was unsatisfactory and unacceptable. He was given adequate opportunity to present his case, but he failed to provide any solid evidence or arguments in his defense. The final conclusion of the District Magistrate was that Mr. Singh was guilty of violating the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976. Considering the severity of the offense, the District Magistrate deemed it appropriate to impose a major penalty. Consequently, Mr. Singh was dismissed from service, effective from the date of the order.
Petitioner's Arguments
The original writ petitioner (since deceased) challenged the dismissal order. He argued that his defense was not properly considered. He had stated that he consumed cough syrup for his cold and cough, which contained a certain percentage of alcohol, and that he was arrested based on suspicion. He further contended that no scientific examination was conducted to conclusively determine whether he had consumed alcohol. Specifically, his blood and urine samples were not taken to ascertain the alcohol content in his system. He argued that a major penalty like dismissal could not be justified based solely on a breathalyzer report.
Court's Observations and Decision
The Patna High Court, after hearing the advocates for both sides and examining the case records, made critical observations. The court noted that a breathalyzer report is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani Vrs. State of Maharashtra [1971 (3) SCC 930], where it was held that mere smelling of alcohol, unsteady gait, incoherent speech, or dilated pupils cannot conclusively establish alcohol consumption. The Supreme Court had emphasized the necessity of blood and urine tests to accurately determine alcohol consumption.
In the present case, the Patna High Court pointed out that there was no evidence indicating that Mr. Singh exhibited symptoms like unsteady gait, incoherent speech, or dilated pupils at the time of his arrest. The court reiterated the Supreme Court's view that the absence of blood and urine tests and the mere smelling of alcohol are insufficient grounds to conclude that a person has consumed alcohol.
The Patna High Court concluded that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider the Supreme Court's observations and had relied solely on the breathalyzer report, which is not a conclusive measure of alcohol consumption. Consequently, the High Court found the dismissal order dated January 11, 2020 (communicated on January 15, 2020), passed by the District Magistrate of Supaul, to be unsustainable. The court also quashed the order passed in the appeal by the Commissioner, which was based on the District Magistrate's order. The writ petition was allowed, effectively setting aside the dismissal of Prabhakar Kumar Singh.
Significance of the Judgment
The Patna High Court's decision highlights the importance of adhering to established legal principles and ensuring that disciplinary actions are based on conclusive evidence. It underscores the limitations of relying solely on breathalyzer tests in determining alcohol consumption and emphasizes the necessity of corroborative medical tests like blood and urine analysis. The judgment also reinforces the principles of natural justice and the need for disciplinary authorities to provide a fair hearing and properly consider the evidence and defense presented by the accused employee.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjU5MCMyMDIyIzEjTg==-FrltDxI7h--ak1--Y=
0 Comments