Patna High Court
Srikant Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 22 August, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1208 of 2021
======================================================
Srikant Prasad Son of Ragho Prasad Resident of Village- Achalpur, Police
Station- Hisua, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Rail, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rail, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Rail, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rail, Samastipur.
8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rail, Sonepur, Chapra.
9. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Rail, Sonepur, Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1528 of 2021
======================================================
Bipin Kumar Son of Bishnudeo Yadav Resident of Village- Maisaur, Police
Station- Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Rail, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rail, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Rail, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rail, Samastipur.
8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rail, Sonepur, Chapra.
9. The Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, Rail, Sonepur, Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1208 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rabinder Kumar, Adv.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
2/23
For the Respondent/s : Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP-5
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1528 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rabinder Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 22-08-2025
This Court has heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned
Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned
Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned
Advocate as well as Mrs. Babita Kumari, learned Advocate for
the State.
2. Since both the impugned orders inflicting the
punishment of dismissal from services are arising out of the one
and the same occurrence, leading to identical charges and
departmental proceeding in the premise of similar facts, hence
both the writ petitions are being heard together and disposed off
by this common order.
3. In CWJC No. 1208 of 2021, the challenge is made
to the order contained in Memo No. 286 dated 27.02.2020,
passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rail, Muzaffarpur,
whereby and whereunder, in pursuant to Departmental Enquiry
No. 16/2019, the petitioner has been inflicted with the
punishment of dismissal. The appeal preferred by the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
3/23
also came to be rejected vide order contained in Memo No. 173
dated 26.05.2020, issued under the signature of respondent no.
3, The Additional Director General of Police, Law & Order,
Bihar, Patna. The challenge is also made to the aforesaid order
along with the memo of charge.
4. In CWJC No. 1528 of 2021, the challenge is made
to the order contained in Memo No. 287 dated 27.02.2020,
passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rail, Muzaffarpur,
whereby and whereunder, in pursuant to Departmental Enquiry
No. 14/2019, the petitioner has been inflicted with the
punishment of dismissal. The appeal preferred by the petitioner
also came to be rejected vide order contained in Memo No. 172
dated 26.05.2020, issued under the signature of respondent no.
3, The Additional Director General of Police, Law & Order,
Bihar, Patna. The appellate order as well as the memo of charge,
are also put to challenge, herein.
5. The short facts, which led to the filing of the
present writ petitions, as culled out from the materials available
on record, are summarized hereinbelow:-
(i) At the relevant time, while the petitioners were
posted as Constable at Rail P.P., Hasanpur; on 10.10.2019, a
video was made viral in social media that in a hall like barrack
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
4/23
situated behind Railway P.P., Hasanpur, DPC.- 334 Manoj
Kumar Singh and Bhusan Kumar Nirmal, railway employee
were seen eating food sitting on chair and table. During the
dining, both the aforenoted persons, picked up a bottle under the
table and poured the substance in the glass and consumed the
same. In the said video, the petitioner of CWJC No. 1208 of
2020 (Srikant Prasad) was found sleeping and Sub-Inspector,
Baijnath Singh and petitioner of CWJC No. 1528 of 2021
(Driver Constable 07- Bipin Kumar) were found talking about a
women liquor smuggler, Renu Devi.
(ii) On account of the viral video in social media, the
Dy.S.P., Samastipur Rail was authorized to enquire into the
matter, who submitted his report on 12.10.2019. Based upon the
aforesaid report, the Superintendent of Police, Rail Muzaffarpur
directed for institution of an FIR, accordingly, Rail Samastipur
(Hasanpur) P.S. Case No. 179 of 2019 was registered for the
offences punishable under Section 37(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016 on 16.10.2019.
(iii) The blood and urine sample of the police
personnels were collected on 14.10.2019 and forwarded to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Muzaffarpur and after clinical
examination, report was furnished on 03.01.2020. In the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
5/23
meanwhile, the petitioners were placed under suspension and a
decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against
the petitioners. After appointment of the Enquiry Officer as well
as Presenting Officer, the memo of charge containing the
imputation, constituting misconduct and unbecoming a member
of a discipline force, on account of their suspected presence in
the room. The memo of charge contains the list of documents as
well as the list of witnesses.
(iv) The petitioners submitted their detailed written
statement/explanation refuting all the allegations. In course of
enquiry, two of the witnesses were examined and after
conclusion of the enquiry, the Conducting Officer submitted his
report vide Memo No. 58 dated 20.01.2020. The second show-
cause notices were issued to the petitioners. In response, thereto,
the petitioners submitted their show-cause reply. However, on
being dissatisfied with their second show-cause reply, inflicted
the punishment of dismissal from the services. The petitioners
aggrieved with the order(s) of punishment, preferred appeal, but
to no succor and the same also came to be rejected.
6. Learned Senior Advocate while assailing the
impugned orders of punishment has contended that the charges
levelled against the petitioners were too vague to understand.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
6/23
The alleged viral video was approximately 3-4 months old and
the petitioners did not have any knowledge, who made the video
or made it viral. Even as per the viral video clips, the petitioner
in CWJC No. 1208 of 2021 (Srikant Prasad) was found sleeping
in the room, whereas, the petitioner in CWJC No. 1528 of 2021
(Bipin Kumar) was found talking to Sub-Inspector Baijnath
Singh.
7. There is nothing in the video that it is the
petitioners who were found consuming the liquor/alcohol. This
fact has also been corroborated by the witnesses, namely, Smt.
Smita Suman. Sr. Dy.S.P. Samastipur and ASI Shiv Shankar
Singh, who were examined and cross examined in the enquiry.
8. The Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate that the
blood and urine test was collected on 14.10.2019 with respect to
incidence, which took place 3-4 months ago and thus, even for
the sake of argument, it is accepted that urine report suggest
ethyl alcohol by the Forensic Science Laboratory; though it is
not corroborated by the blood test report, that may give a fresh
cause of action, but could not satisfy the subjected charges. All
the more, the report is itself contradictory and, as such, the order
of punishment is not based upon any substantive material.
9. The entire enquiry report is based upon surmises
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
7/23
and conjectures and only on being found their presence in the
room, suspicion has been raised against the petitioners and
thereby, the Enquiry Officer returned the finding of guilt. The
disciplinary authority also failed to consider the show-cause
reply of the petitioners and inflicted the harshest punishment of
dismissal only on the basis of suspicion and the Forensic
Science Laboratory report, which could not be relied on account
of being contradictory to each other. The appellate order is also
wholly perverse and non speaking, inasmuch as, no ground of
challenge has been discussed and deliberated.
10. Narrating the aforesaid facts, reliance has also
been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Sonu Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 17527
of 2019, wherein, based upon a viral video, in which the
delinquent was seen consuming alcohol, had been subjected to
departmental proceeding and inflicted with the order of
dismissal. However, the Court on being found that the finding of
misconduct being without evidence, to support the charges, has
set-aside the impugned order of punishment.
11. Dispelling the aforesaid contention, learned
Advocate for the State submitted that the entire departmental
proceeding was conducted in terms with the Bihar Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
8/23
Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
Having noticed the viral video, affecting and tarnishing the
image of the police force, an enquiry was conducted by the Sr.
Deputy Superintendent of Police, who submitted the report
suspecting the role of the petitioners, constituting an act of
misconduct. The aforesaid incidence also led to institution of a
criminal case and the police on being found case true, has also
submitted charge-sheet.
12. The Forensic Science Laboratory clearly suggest
the petitioners had consumed liquor, which is prohibited and
punishable in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016. The act of the petitioners was very grave in
nature and flagrant violation of discipline and thus, they were
placed under suspension. The witnesses were examined, who
supported the charges. The Enquiry Officer returned the finding
of guilt. The petitioners were extended ample opportunity,
however, they could not be able to show their innocence and
finally, the disciplinary authority on being found the charges
proved, inflicted the punishment of dismissal, which is
proportionate to the charges. The appeal(s) preferred by the
petitioners also did not find any favour and accordingly, the
appeal(s) were also rejected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
9/23
13. This Court has carefully perused the materials
available on record and also considered the rival submissions of
the learned Advocate for the respective parties.
14. There is no dispute with regard to the facts that on
10.10.2019
, a Whatsapp video went viral, which led to enquiry
and submission of the enquiry report on 12.10.2019, disclosing
that one Manoj Kumar Singh along with railway employee were
taking some liquor like substance in a room where both the
petitioners were present. The aforesaid incidence led to
institution of the FIR against the petitioners and others. In
course of enquiry, it has been found that the incidence was of 3-
4 months ago, when a female liquor trafficker was apprehended
and remanded to judicial custody, after institution of the FIR. It
is also admitted in the report that the viral video did not show
that both the petitioners were consuming the liquor and in fact,
all of them have submitted their respective explanation that on
the said date, one Manoj Kumar Singh, DPC.- 334 and Bhushan
Kumar Nirmal, Mechanical Engineer of Railway were taking
cold drinks. Neither the maker of the video nor the person who
had produced or who had made it viral have been enquired
upon. The blood and urine sample were collected on 12.10.2019
and sent to the FSL on 14.10.2019. The report was submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
10/23
under Memo No. R.F.S.L. No. 759/19 dated 04.01.2020. It is
reported that ethyl alcohol was detected in exhibits marked B2,
B3, B4 and B5, and ethyl alcohol could not be detected in
exhibits marked A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and B1. It is only this
report, which has made the basis of punishment.
15. The memo of charge contains three documentary
evidence. Firstly, the order of suspension of the petitioners;
secondly, the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the
Dy.S.P., Railway, wherein she narrated the incidence seen in the
viral video and lastly a copy of the CD of viral video dated
10.10.2019. The list of witnesses contains the name of two
witnesses, one is the person who submitted the preliminary
enquiry report, the Dy.S.P. Rail Police Samastipur and second
Police Sub-Inspector, Shiv Shankar Singh.
16. The witnesses were duly examined but both of
them have only stated that after having seen the viral video, it
appears that two persons were consuming liquors and these
petitioners were found sleeping and sitting, respectively in the
room. In course of examination, both of these witnesses have
categorically admitted that the petitioners were not found seen
consuming or taking meal or liquor. The persons, who were
found consuming the liquor like substance, were not even
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
11/23
talking to the petitioners. The bottle which was found kept there
does not appear to be a bottle of liquor.
17. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the presence of
the petitioners in the said room was found suspicious. Albeit, the
Enquiry Officer came to the definite conclusion that in course of
enquiry, the witnesses could not be able to prove the evidence of
consuming liquor by the petitioners, however, as the petitioners
have been made accused, based upon a viral video and in course
of investigation, the ethyl alcohol is found in the urine sample
and the supervising officers of the investigation has found the
petitioners guilty of consuming liquor and, therefore, returned
the finding of guilt against the petitioners.
18. Time without number, the Court has held that the
charges levelled against the delinquent officers must be found to
have been proved. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a
finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has unequivocally held that the purported
evidence collected during investigation by the investigating
officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be
evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. The Court in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
12/23
aforesaid case said that since no witness was examined to prove
the said documents and the management witnesses were merely
tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof.
Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the
FIR, which could not have been treated as evidence.
19. In the case in hand, the memo of charge does not
contain the FSL report, based upon which the finding of the
Enquiry Officer proved the charges nor any of the witnesses
have been examined to prove the report and contents, thereof.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Bahadur Vs.
Union of India & Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 142 has held that,
“sufficiency of evidence postulates existence of some evidence
which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged
against him. Evidence, however, voluminous it may be, which is
neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus
between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no
evidence in law.”
20. Admittedly, in the preliminary enquiry report, it
has been found that the incidence, as shown in the viral video
was of 3-4 months ago, which led to institution of the FIR on
12.10.2019. The sample of blood and urine was collected and
sent to the FSL on 14.10.2019 and the report of the FSL has
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
13/23
been submitted under Memo dated 04.01.2020. Thus, in any
view of the matter, the FSL report of the urine containing ethyl
alcohol cannot be said to be with respect to an incidence which
took place 3-4 months ago.
21. It would be pertinent to state here that alcohol
consumption and intoxication are frequent elements in criminal
and civil litigation. The books on medical jurisprudence
invariably, suggest that determining whether a person has
consumed alcohol and their level of intoxication requires
scientifically sound and legally reliable evidence. Blood and
urine reports are primary forensic tools, but their evidentiary
value depends on scientific methodology, detection window and
judicial scrutiny. So far the scientific reliability of a blood report
is concerned, it is said that blood alcohol concentration directly
measures alcohol present in the blood at the time of sample
collection. The blood alcohol concentration results are accurate
and widely accepted in Courts for quantifying the degree of
intoxication. Alcohol is detectable in blood for up to 12 hours
post-consumption. Special biomarkers can extend detection to
days/weeks for chronic use. However, legal protocols require
proper collection, preservation (often using sodium fluoride),
and documentation to ensure reliability. Mismanagement of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
14/23
samples or lack of chain of custody undermines evidentiary
value.
22. Similarly, the urine test detect alcohol and its
metabolites (such as EtG and EtS), which can indicate recent
consumption up to 24-80 hours post-intake. It also provides
evidence of recent use but not precise impairment at a specific
point in time. Urine alcohol levels reflect blood alcohol
concentration at time of urination, however, not necessarily at
the time of offence/alleged intoxication. It results susceptible to
dilution, recent fluid intake and possible contamination.
Moreover, it is easier to adulterate than blood samples.
23. Bare reading of the aforenoted summarization of
the evidentiary value of blood and urine report, in case of
consumption of alcohol, any prudent person, can very well
reach to the conclusion that the FSL report, which is made the
very basis to prove the charges cannot be with regard to an
incidence, which took place 3-4 months ago. The mode and
manner in which it is produced and relied upon by the Enquiry
Officer, that is also not at all admissible in the eyes of law.
24. Now coming to the evidentiary value of the viral
video, it would be pertinent to refer to a decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
15/23
Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., (2020) 7
SCC 1, wherein the Court underscored the requirement of
certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act before
placing reliance upon the electronic evidence. To appreciate the
legal position of the evidentiary value of electronic evidence,
this Court thinks it apt and proper to encapsulate paragraph nos.
60, 61 and 84, hereinbelow:-
“60. It may also be seen that the
person who gives this certificate can be
anyone out of several persons who occupy a
“responsible official position” in relation to
the operation of the relevant device, as also
the person who may otherwise be in the
“management of relevant activities” spoken
of in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B.
Considering that such certificate may also be
given long after the electronic record has
actually been produced by the computer,
Section 65-B(4) makes it clear that it is
sufficient that such person gives the requisite
certificate to the “best of his knowledge and
belief”. [Obviously, the word “and” between
knowledge and belief in Section 65-B(4) must
be read as “or”, as a person cannot testify to
the best of his knowledge and belief at the
same time.]
61. We may reiterate, therefore,
that the certificate required under Section 65-
B(4) is a condition precedent to the
admissibility of evidence by way of electronic
record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. [Anvar
P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 :
(2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri)
24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] , and
incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi Mohammad
[Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2
SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC 807 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Civ) 346 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2018)
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
16/231 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] .
Oral evidence in the place of such certificate
cannot possibly suffice as Section 65-B(4) is
a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed,
the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor
[Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426] ,
which has been followed in a number of the
judgments of this Court, can also be applied.
Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly
states that secondary evidence is admissible
only if led in the manner stated and not
otherwise. To hold otherwise would render
Section 65-B(4) otiose.
84. But Section 65-B(1) starts
with a non obstante clause excluding the
application of the other provisions and it
makes the certification, a precondition for
admissibility. While doing so, it does not talk
about relevancy. In a way, Sections 65-A and
65-B, if read together, mix up both proof and
admissibility, but not talk about relevancy.
Section 65-A refers to the procedure
prescribed in Section 65-B, for the purpose of
proving the contents of electronic records,
but Section 65-B speaks entirely about the
preconditions for admissibility. As a result,
Section 65-B places admissibility as the first
or the outermost checkpost, capable of
turning away even at the border, any
electronic evidence, without any enquiry, if
the conditions stipulated therein are not
fulfilled.”
25. In the case of Sonu Kumar (supra), learned co-
ordinate Bench of this Court while setting-aside the order of
dismissal, which was culminated upon a departmental
proceeding based upon a viral video, where the delinquent was
seeing consuming liquor, the learned Court has placed reliance
upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bharat
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
17/23
Prasad Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 18331
of 2019. In case of Bharat Prasad Yadav (supra), the learned
Single Judge also placing reliance upon the Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar (supra), has observed that since the viral video clip
containing in CD has not been proved during the course of
enquiry by resorting to the procedure established by law, as
such, is inadmissible by way of evidence, as per the Evidence
Act, 1892. The Court, in aforenoted case, besides aforesaid
observation, further held that neither the maker of the video clip
was examined, as a witness nor the mobile through which the
video was made viral has been recovered, much less exhibited
and, moreover, no eyewitness to the alleged incidence has been
examined by the prosecution in the aforesaid departmental
enquiry, resulted in the entire enquiry proceedings having been
rendered nugatory on account of no evidence being available on
record to substantiate the allegations leveled against the
petitioner.
26. Similar is the finding in the case of Sonu Kumar
(supra) where the learned co-ordinate Bench having taken note
of the fact that no evidence was led before the Enquiring
Authority that there was alcohol in the said bottle and what the
delinquent was drinking was alcohol. Moreover, in the said case,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
18/23
neither there was any breath analyzer test nor the blood sample
of the delinquent was taken for chemical examination, apart
from the procedure not been followed to substantiate the
electronic evidence held the impugned decision of the
disciplinary authority, based upon no evidence and a perfunctory
and thereby, set-aside the impugned order of dismissal.
27. This Court is conscious of the limitation while
exercising the power of judicial review in a matter relating to
departmental enquiry/proceeding, which obviously caution the
Court to re-examine or re-appraise the evidence and substitute
its own conclusion in place of the conclusions arrived at by the
Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority on that evidence.
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep
Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 10,
has held that, true it is that the Court cannot sit in appeal over
those findings and assume the role of the appellate authority.
But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court
interfere. The power of judicial review available to the High
Court as also to the Apex Court under the Constitution takes in
its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with
the conclusions reached therein, if there was no evidence to
support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
19/23
not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the
findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior
authority. It would be worth benefiting to encapsulate paragraph
nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10:-
“7. In Nand Kishore Prasad v.
State of Bihar [(1978) 3 SCC 366 : 1978
SCC (L&S) 458 : AIR 1978 SC 1277 : (1978)
3 SCR 708] it was held that the disciplinary
proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of
quasi-judicial character and, therefore, it is
necessary that the Tribunal should arrive at
its conclusions on the basis of some evidence,
that is to say, such evidence which and that
too, with some degree of definiteness, points
to the guilt of the delinquent and does not
leave the matter in a suspicious state as mere
suspicion cannot take the place of proof even
in domestic enquiries. If, therefore, there is
no evidence to sustain the charges framed
against the delinquent, he cannot be held to
be guilty as in that event, the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer would be
perverse.
8. The findings recorded in a
domestic enquiry can be characterised as
perverse if it is shown that such findings are
not supported by any evidence on record or
are not based on the evidence adduced by the
parties or no reasonable person could have
come to those findings on the basis of that
evidence. This principle was laid down by
this Court in State of A.P. v. Rama Rao
[(1964) 2 LLJ 150 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 :
(1964) 3 SCR 25] in which the question was
whether the High Court under Article 226
could interfere with the findings recorded at
the departmental enquiry. This decision was
followed in Central Bank of India Ltd. v.
Prakash Chand Jain [(1969) 2 LLJ 377 : AIR
1969 SC 983] and Bharat Iron Works v.
Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel [(1976) 1 SCC
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
20/23
518 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 92 : 1976 Lab IC 4 :
AIR 1976 SC 98 : (1976) 2 SCR 280] . In
Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn.
[(1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 :
AIR 1984 SC 1805 : (1985) 1 SCR 866] it
was laid down that where the findings of
misconduct are based on no legal evidence
and the conclusion is one to which no
reasonable man could come, the findings can
be rejected as perverse. It was also laid down
that where a quasi-judicial tribunal records
findings based on no legal evidence and the
findings are its mere ipse dixit or based on
conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers
from the additional infirmity of non-
application of mind and stands vitiated.
9. Normally the High Court and
this Court would not interfere with the
findings of fact recorded at the domestic
enquiry but if the finding of “guilt” is based
on no evidence, it would be a perverse
finding and would be amenable to judicial
scrutiny.
10. A broad distinction has,
therefore, to be maintained between the
decisions which are perverse and those
which are not. If a decision is arrived at on
no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly
unreliable and no reasonable person would
act upon it, the order would be perverse. But
if there is some evidence on record which is
acceptable and which could be relied upon,
howsoever compendious it may be, the
conclusions would not be treated as perverse
and the findings would not be interfered
with.”
29. In the light of the aforenoted settled legal position,
this Court on careful consideration of the enquiry report as well
as the impugned order of punishment finds that the very charge
is based upon suspicion, regarding the presence of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
21/23petitioners in the room, where two persons were seen
consuming liquor. There is a specific finding of the Enquiry
Officer that none of the witnesses and the documentary evidence
have supported the charge of consumption of liquor by the
petitioners. Notwithstanding, the aforesaid fact, placing reliance
upon the FSL report showing ethyl alcohol in the urine samples
collected during the course of investigation, that too with
respect to Rail Samastipur (Hasanpur) P.S. Case No. 179 of
2019, the copy of which has also not been supplied to the
petitioners nor any witnesses have been produced to prove the
same and, as such, it cannot be held to be admissible, based
upon which the finding has been returned by the Enquiry
Officer. However, this fatal flaws has been completely
overlooked by the disciplinary authority.
30. This Court before moving further also notices that
the Presenting Officer did not perform any role by presenting
the case of the department before the enquiry authority and,
prima facie, it seems that the Enquiry Officer himself assumed
the role of the Presenting Officer. The Court on number of
occasions highlighted the role of Presenting Officer viz-a-viz the
Enquiry Officer. Reference may be taken to the decisions in case
of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
22/23(2010) 2 SCC 772; and Panchanan Kumar Vs. The Bihar State
Electricity Board & Ors., (1196) 1 PLJR 401.
31. Coming to the impugned order passed by the
disciplinary authority inflicting the punishment of dismissal, the
same is only found to be based upon the FSL report, which has
been duly deliberated and discussed by this Court in the
aforenoted paragraphs, that the same cannot be said to be in
relation to an incidence which led to initiation of the present
departmental proceeding. Besides other infirmities noted
hereinabove, neither the FSL report nor the viral video clip have
been proved in the mode and manner required under the law
and, as such, the order of the disciplinary authority, which is
based on the finding of the enquiry authority is also without no
evidence and perfunctory one, wholly unjust, illegal and
unsustainable.
32. The appellate orders also appear to be completely
non speaking and there is no deliberation and discussion, as to
why the grounds raised by the petitioners are not found worthy
for consideration. The role of the disciplinary authority as
assigned under Rule 17 and the appellate authority under Rule
27 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 2005 has been completely overlooked.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1208 of 2021 dt.22-08-2025
23/23
33. Accordingly, both the impugned orders of
dismissal contained in Memo Nos. 286 & 287 dated 27.02.2020
as well as appellate order as contained in Memo Nos. 172 & 173
dated 26.05.2020 are hereby set-aside. Both the writ petitions
stands allowed.
34. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated
forthwith, with all the consequential benefits to be paid within a
period of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order/judgment.
35. The parties shall bear their cost.
36. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed off.
37. The office is directed to return the records relating
to disciplinary proceeding to the Government Pleader No. 5,
after pronouncement/uploading of this order/judgment.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 24.06.2025 Uploading Date 25.08.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link