BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 11/5/2020, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 21/9/2020, passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, rejecting the memorial filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable with the Bihar Police, has rendered more than 20 years of service and has also been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, apart from being rewarded on several occasions for his sincere and disciplined service. It is stated that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Saharsa Police Kendra, Saharsa but was on deputation for Karakat Lok Sabha Election at Manjhauli, under Sanjhauli Police Station, he was allegedly found having consumed liquor during duty hours, hence was sent to judicial custody persuant to lodging of an F.I.R. bearing Sanjhauli P.S. Case No.67 of 2019 dtd. 19/5/2019 under Sec. 37 (B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, whereafter he was released on bail on 20/5/2019. A memo of charge dtd. 27/6/2019 was served upon the petitioner and a departmental proceeding bearing no. 13/19 was initiated by the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa, whereafter the petitioner had participated in the departmental inquiry and the Inquiry Officer had submitted his Inquiry Report dtd. 19/3/2020, finding all the charges to have been proved qua the petitioner herein. A second show-cause notice dtd. 29/4/2020 was then issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had filed a reply on 8/5/2020. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa, had then passed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service on 11/5/2020, which was challenged by the petitioner, by filing a memorial, however the same has also stood rejected by the impugned order dtd. 21/9/2020.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has though submitted that consumption of liquor by the petitioner could not have been proved merely on the basis of Breathalyzer Test, however, he has confined his argument to the issue of nonobservance of the principle of proportionality, while imposing punishment upon the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner has rendered unblemished service of about 20 years and has also been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, apart from having been awarded for his sincere and disciplined service. It is also submitted that there is no evidence of any past conduct of similar nature and in fact the petitioner has not been alleged to have created any pandemonium while on duty, hence the punishment of dismissal from service, inflicted upon the petitioner is excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner.