Patna High Court
Srikant Roy vs The State Of Bihar on 28 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11012 of 2019
======================================================
1.1. Geeta Devi Wife of Late Srikant Roy, Resident of Village and P.O. -
Kasiyan, P.S. - Dumarao, District - Buxar.
1.2. Rohit Kumar Singh, Son of Late Srikant Roy, Resident of Village and P.O. -
Kasiyan, P.S.- Dumarao, District - Buxar.
1.3. Ravi Kumar Roy, Son of Late Srikant Roy, Resident of Village and P.O. -
Kasiyan, P.S.- Dumarao, District - Buxar.
1.4. Rajnish Singh, Son of Late Srikant Roy, Resident of Village and P.O. -
Kasiyan, P.S.- Dumarao, District - Buxar.
1.5. Rima Kumari, D/o Late Srikant Roy, Resident of Village and P.O. - Kasiyan,
P.S.- Dumarao, District - Buxar.
1.6. Ruby Devi, Wife of Amit Singh, Resident of Village and P.O. - Choura, P.S.
- Narahi, District - Balia (U.P).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Patna.
4. The Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna.
5. The Inspector General of Police Bhagalpur Zone Home Department
Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Munger Range, Munger.
7. The Superintendent of Police Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad (SC8)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents-State.
2. The original petitioner Srikant Roy during
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
2/10
pendency of this petition has been died on 30.11.2020,
therefore, his legal representatives are incorporated as the
petitioners in his place.
3. The deceased Srikant Roy on 19.03.2019 while
he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police, Chakia O.P. Begusarai
and was on duty in the night shift, at that time, the breath
analyzer test was conducted wherein it was found that the
deceased petitioner has consumed liquor. The First Information
Report bearing Barauni (Chakia) P.S. Case No. 129 of 2019
under Section 37B of the Bihar Excise and Liquor Prohibition
Act, 2016 was registered against the deceased petitioner and he
was arrested on 20.03.2019 and put under suspension. On
28.03.2019
, he was served a notice and explanation was sought
from him within 24 hours. Subsequently, on 04.04.2019,
Annexure-P/1, he was dismissed from the services invoking
Rule 20 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 as also Clause 10 (ii) of
Addendum 49 of Volume 3 of the Bihar Police Manual and
Article 311(2)(B) of the Constitution of India. Hence, this
petition has been field by the deceased Srikant Roy and during
pendency of this petition he died, therefore now his legal
representatives are available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
3/10
order of dismissal has been passed invoking the power under
Article 311(2)(B) of the Constitution of India. According to the
counsel, the said order is not sustainable in view of the specific
provision that it can be exercised in a case where the
disciplinary authority is satisfied that it is not a reasonably
practicable to hold such an enquiry. It is further contended that
no reason as required under Section 311(2)(B) of the
Constitution of India has been assigned by the disciplinary
authority. It is further submitted by the counsel that order of
dismissal is also bad, illegal and unconstitutional as the same is
based on breath analyzer test only which is not conclusive
evidence of consumption of liquor.
5. Reliance has been placed by the counsel on the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bachubhai Hasanalli Karyani Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930 and also reliance has been placed
by the counsel on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Singh Vrs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. Passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8460 of
2021.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State
opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
4/10
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition as
well as the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed
by the respondents-State.
8. Undisputedly, in this case, no charge-sheet has
been issued against the deceased petitioner nor any departmental
enquiry has been conducted against him and his services has
been dismissed invoking the power under Article 311(2)(B) of
the Constitution of India. Perusal of the impugned order
(Annexure-P/1) further shows that only on the basis of breath
analyzer text, it was found that the deceased petitioner was
consumed liquor. Apart from the breath analyzer test, no other
test has been conducted. In the case of Bachubhai Hasanalli
Karyani (supra), it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
the breath analyzer report is not the conclusive report of
evidence for consumption of Alcohol unless it is corroborated
by the blood and urine report. Therefore, only on the basis of
breath analyzer report, it cannot be said that the deceased
petitioner was consumed Alcohol.
9. The deceased petitioner has been dismissed from
the services without going into any departmental proceeding
only invoking the power under Article 311(2)(B) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
5/10
Constitution of India. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Pankaj Kumar Singh (Supra) relying in the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 and
further referring to the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Muqaddar Khan Vs. the
State of Bihar reported in 2021(2) PLJR 355 observed as
under:
Para 10. “Trite it is that the
constitutional provision under
Article 311(2)(b) can be invoked
to dismiss a government servant
only if a disciplinary authority
records in writing his opinion
that it is not reasonably
practicable, in the facts and
circumstances, to hold a
disciplinary proceeding by taking
disciplinary action. The
importance of recording reason
and reflecting satisfaction of the
disciplinary authority to the effect
that the departmental enquiry is
not reasonably practicable was
considered thread bare by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram
Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398, wherein
the Court held that a disciplinary
authority is not expected to
dispense with the disciplinary
enquiry lightly or arbitrarily or
out of ulterior motives or merely
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
6/10in order to avoid of holding an
enquiry or because of
Department’s case against the
government servant is weak and
must fail. Hon’ble Court in
paragraph no.133 of the,
aforenoted, decision has observed
that “the second condition
necessary for the valid
application of clause (b) of the
second proviso is that the
disciplinary authority should
record in writing its reason for its
satisfaction that it was not
reasonably practicable to hold the
inquiry contemplated by Article
311(2). This is a constitutional
obligation and if such reason is
not recorded in writing, the order
dispensing with the inquiry and
the order of penalty following
thereupon would both be void and
unconstitutional.”
Para 11. “Placing reliance upon
the mandate of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, a Bench of this
Court in the case of Md.
Muqaddar Khan (supra), while
considering the identical issue
based upon the similar facts, has
held in paragraph nos. 9 and 10
as follows:
“9. Before proceeding to address
the issues involved in the present
case, one has to keep in mind that
Clause (2) of Article 311 is a
constitutional mandate, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
7/10guarantees not only adherence to
principles of natural justice, it
makes it compulsory to hold an
enquiry after informing a
member of civil service of the
Union or an All India Service or
a civil service of a State or holds a
civil post under the Union or a
State informing him of the
charges against him, if an action
of dismissal, removal or reduction
in rank is proposed.
10. The principle incorporated in
Clause (2) of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India shall have
no application in three
circumstances as provided under
the second proviso to Clause (2)
of Article 311 of the Constitution
of India. One of the three
circumstances is, 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
that authority in writing, it is not
reasonably practicable to hold
such inquiry. On plain reading of
the second circumstance
mentioned in the second proviso
to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India, it can be
easily noticed that in order to
dispense with the requirement of
enquiry, all of the following
elements must exist:-
(i) Conduct of the government
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
8/10servant is such that he deserves
punishment of dismissal, removal
or reduction in rank.
(ii) There must be a satisfaction
of the disciplinary authority that
it is not reasonably practicable to
hold such enquiry;
(iii) There must be reason for
coming to the aforesaid
conclusion, which must be
recorded in writing; and
(iv) Satisfaction must be of the
authority empowered to dismiss
or remove or reduce in rank and
the reasons in support of his
satisfaction must be recorded by
the said authority.”
Para-12. “It would be also worth
relevant to mention here that in
the case of Muqaddar Khan
(Supra) the order of dismissal
was also passed in pursuant to the
letter of the Director General of
Police dated 26.03.2019, identical
to the present impugned order,
which requires expeditious
disciplinary action of dismissal
from service. This Court having
taken note of such fact held that
the said letter cannot be a basis to
avoid constitutional mandate of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution
of India to hold an enquiry before
imposing punishment of dismissal
or removal from service or
reduction in rank. Learned
coordinate Bench of this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
9/10
has also taken note of the
decision rendered in the case of
Jaswant Singh V. State of Punjab
(1991) 1 SCC 362, Reena Rani V.
State of Haryana (2012) 10 SCC
215 and Risal Singh V. State of
Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 244,
wherein the Hon’ble Court while
setting aside the order of
dismissal held that it is incumbent
upon the disciplinary authority, to
support the order to show that
satisfaction is based on certain
objective facts and is not the
outcome of whim or caprice of
the concerned officers. Any order
passed by the disciplinary
authority, bereft of reasons for
dispensing with the enquiry is
vulnerable and ultra vires Article
311(2) of the Constitution of
India”.
10. Taking note of the above, the impugned order
which has been passed by the concerned respondent invoking
the provision under Article 311(2)(B) of the Constitution of
India is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order, Annexure-
P/1, is, hereby, set aside.
12. The present petitioners, who are the legal
representatives of the deceased petitioner, named as above, are
entitled to get entire consequential benefit up to death of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11012 of 2019 dt.28-07-2025
10/10
deceased petitioner i.e. dated 30.11.2020. The respondents are
directed to clear the entire dues as early as possible probably
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this order.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction,
this writ petition is allowed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel , J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 30.07.2025 Transmission Date NA