Patna High Court
Birendra Kujur vs The State Of Bihar on 19 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 12122 of 2022
======================================================
Birendra Kujur Son of Soma Kujur Resident of Village- Chuglu Parki Toli,
Gambhariya, P.O.- Sakarpur Gambhariya, P.S.- Gumla, District- Gumla at
present residing at new Shanti Nagar, Palkot Road, P.O. and P.S.- Gumla,
District- Gumla.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police,
Bihar, Patna.
4. The D.I.G. of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police, Central Zone, Patna.
5. The Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police- 2, Dehri, District- Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Hriday Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. N.H. Khan (Sc1)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for
setting aside the order of dismissal dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure 4)
passed by the Commandant BMP - 2, now known as BSAP - 2,
Dehri and order dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure 8) passed by the DIG
of Police, BSAP, Central Zone, Patna whereby the appeal preferred
by the petitioner has been rejected and also challenged the order
dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure 10) passed by the DGP, Bihar, Patna
whereby the Memorial of the petitioner has been rejected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
2/7
2 Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
on the post of Constable in the year, 1996 and was promoted as
Havildar in BMP - 2, Dehri in the year, 2016. On 05.10.2019,
Dehri PS Case No 695 of 2019 under Section 37 of the Bihar
Prohibition & Excise Act (Amended Excise Act, 2016) has been
lodged against the petitioner for making nuisance in drunken state
and was sent to judicial custody on the same day. When he was in
judicial custody, a show cause under Article 311 (2) (b) of the
Constitution of India was asked by the Commandant on
17.10.2019
by which the petitioner was asked to show cause
against his dismissal within ten days from the date of receipt of
notice. The petitioner submitted his reply of the show cause on
24.10.2019 (Annexure 3) from Mandal Kara, Sasaram.
Subsequently, on 30.10.2019, the Commandant, BMP – 2, Dehri
passed the impugned order of dismissal (Annexure 4) under
Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India against which the
petitioner preferred appeal and subsequently Memorial but both of
them were rejected by the authorities. Hence, this petition.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the Disciplinary Authority did not assign any reason for dispensing
with the departmental enquiry and dismissed the services of the
petitioner invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
3/7
Constitution of India. Thus, the order of dismissal on this ground
alone is bad in law. He further submits that the charge of
drunkenness cannot be proved without the examination of urine
and blood but in this case no blood or urine of the petitioner has
been sent for chemical examination. Therefore, charge of
drunkenness cannot be said to have been proved. He further
submits that the Disciplinary Authority, only on the basis of reply
of show cause submitted by the petitioner, arrived on the
conclusion that the petitioner has admitted his guilt that he was
found in drunken position but no such type of admission has been
made by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause. He further
submits that in the order of dismissal also, the Disciplinary
Authority did not quote any of the medical report of the petitioner
which shows that he was found in drunken condition. Therefore,
on these grounds, the order of dismissal as well as subsequent
orders passed by the authorities are liable to be set aside.
4 Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that since the petitioner himself admitted his guilt in his
reply to the show cause, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority
rightly arrived on the conclusion that the petitioner was found in
drunken condition and the Disciplinary Authority, in the light of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
4/7
Kkikad&58@xks0 dated 26.03.2019 issued by the DGP, rightly passed
the order of dismissal.
5 I have heard learned counsel for both the parties,
perused the impugned orders and documents annexed with the
petition as well as the counter affidavit.
6 Undisputedly, in the case of petitioner, before passing
the dismissal order, no departmental enquiry has been conducted
by the Department and the Disciplinary Authority, invoking the
provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India,
passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner. At this juncture, it
would be appropriate to reproduce relevant extract of Article 311
(2) (b) of the Constitution of India:
“311. Dismissal, removal or reduction
in rank of persons employed in civil capacities
under the Union or a State.
(1) … … …
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall
be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank
except after an enquiry in which he has been
informed of the charges against him and given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect
of those charges:
… … …
(b) where the authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in
rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be
recorded by the authority in writing, it is not
reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or”
Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
5/7
7 Bare perusal of the relevant extract of the Constitution
of India, as quoted above, clearly shows that before passing the
order under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution India, the
Disciplinary Authority ought to have assigned his reason for
dispensing with the departmental enquiry. Perusal of the
impugned order (Annexure 4) shows that in the said order, no such
type of reason has been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority.
8 The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of
dismissal (Annexure 4) in the light of Kkikad&58@xks0. At this
juncture, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant part of the
impugned order (Annexure 4) whereby the services of the
petitioner have been dismissed in the light of Kkikad&58@xks0%
^^mYys[kuh; gS fd iqfyl egkfuns”kd] fcgkj
iVuk }kjk vius Kkikad&58@xks0 fnukad 26-03-2019
ds ek/;e ls funsZ”k fn;k x;k gS fd ftu iqfyl
inkf/kdkjh@dfeZ;ksa dks ‘kjkc lsou ds ekeys esa nks”kh
ik;k x;k gS ,oa fpfdRlh; tkWp esa ‘kjkc ihus dh iqf”V
gqbZ gS mu iqfyl inkf/kdkjh@dfeZ;ksa dks Hkkjrh;
lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 311 ¼2½ ¼b½ ds vkyksd esa ,sls
ekeyksa esa 03 fnu ds vUnj lsok ls c[kkZLr djus dh
dkjZokbZ dh tk;A mijksDr vf/kfu;e ds rgr ,oa
iqfyl eq[;ky; ds funsZ”k ds vkyksd esa dk;kZy; dk
Kkikad%&3178@j-dk- fnukad 17-10-2019 ds }kjk
fuyfEcr go0 158 fcjsUnz dqtwj ls c[kkZLrxh ds fo:)
Li”Vhdj.k dh ekWx dh x;hA rRi”pkr~ budk
Li”Vhdj.k fnukad&25-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk] ftlls
buds ‘kjkc lsou djus dh Lor% iqf”V gksrh gSA
rRi”pkr~ lSU; iqfyl tSls vuq”kkflr cy esa bUgsa j[kus
dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gSA^^
9 Kkikad&58@xks0 has not been brought on record either by
the petitioner or by the respondents. However, it has been quoted
Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
6/7
in the impugned order (Annexure 4) whereby the direction has
been issued by the DGP in the cases where the police
Officers/employees have been found guilty for consumption of
liquor or in the cases wherein it is found in the medical
examination that the concerned has consumed liquor. Under such
circumstances, the Police Officer or employee shall be terminated
invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of
India.
10 Undisputedly, at the time of passing of dismissal
order, no order of guilt for consumption of liquor has been passed
by any Court of law. The medical examination report of the
petitioner has also not been mentioned by the Disciplinary
Authority in his order of dismissal. The Disciplinary Authority,
only on the basis of reply to the show cause dated 25.10.2019 of
the petitioner, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has
admitted his guilt that he consumed the liquor at the time of
incident. Perusal of the reply to the show cause dated 25.10.2019
(Annexure 3) clearly shows that in the said reply, it has not been
admitted by the petitioner that at the time of incident, he was
found in drunken condition. Relevant part of the reply is quoted
herein:
^^bl laca/k esa gesa dguk gS fd eSa vius
drZO; ls vuq”kklufgurk ds nk;js esa vk x;k FkkA ^^
Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
7/7
11 Thus, it is quite clear that in his reply to the show
cause, the petitioner had not made any admission regarding his
guilt. Even after that, the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the
order of dismissal, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has
admitted his guilt. While deciding the appeal as well as the
memorial of the petitioner, the concerned authorities have also not
considered these aspects.
12 In the light of above, the order of dismissal and
subsequent orders (Annexures 8 and 10) passed by the authorities
are liable to be set aside.
13 The writ petition is allowed.
14 The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order with all consequential benefits.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 21.08.2025 Transmission Date NA