IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that disciplinary authorities must adhere to their own binding circulars, and breath analyzer results are not conclusive for imposing severe penalties without further medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

G. NARENDAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants-Corporation and learned counsel for the 1st Respondent.

2. The Appellants is the Employer-Transport Department and this Appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge rendered in W.P. No. 18876 of 2021, whereby the learned single Judge was pleased to grant partial relief to the Respondent No. 1 by the following order:

“13. Even Section 204 of the Motor Vehicles Act indicates about the conduct of laboratory test. In the present case, there is discrepancy of reading and the device is only a prima facie evidence of alcohol in blood that it cannot be a decisive test to impose punishment against the delinquent, as discussed above there can be false implication and this Court held that the delinquent ought to have been subjected to medical rather than breath analyzer. For the above discussion and as per the quoted judgments, this Court feels that the order of removal/dismissal is liable to be set aside.

14. The order impugned in the present Writ Petition is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, however, the petitioner shall suffer the punishment of reducing of one increment without cumulative effect and he is not entitled for any back wages for out of service and the said period shall be calculated for the purpose of pensionary related benefits.”

3. The learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that the reasoning given by the learned single Judge that the Corporation is entitled to impose only punishment as stipulated under Circular No. PD 33/2018, dated 12.09.2018, is incorrect and illegal. That the Circular cannot be construed as replacing the Regulations and that the punishment having not been prescribed under Regulations, the Circular would not take precedence over the Regulations and hence the order of the learned single Judge is unsustainable and warrants interference by this Court.

4. The said contention in our considered opinion is ill-founded & unsustainable. The Circular having been issued in exercise of the powers vested in the competent Authority under the Regulations and having being issued with the object of removing arbitrariness in the matter of imposition of punishments and in order to bring about transparency in functioning of the Disciplinary Authority, it cannot be said to be violative of the Regulations. That apart, the Appellants having issued the Circular in exercise of powers vested in, it is not open for the Appellants- Corporation to rely on the same and contend that the same is not binding on the Corporation. The law in this regard is no more Res-Integra. The Authorities are bound by the Instructions/Circulars variably issued by them in exercise of the powers vested in the Corporation. It is not the case of the Appellants that the Corporation is divested of any authority to issue such a Circular. It is also not the case of the Appellants that the Circular has not been followed and that the Appellant- Corporation never intended to implement the Circulars.

5. Serial No. 5 of Annexure II of the Circular reads as under:

5. Intoxication

5.1 Minor offences

6. The consumption of alcohol and consequent intoxication and where the level of intoxication is found to be more than 30mg/100ml as per the Breath Analyser test for the first time is classified as Minor-2 misconduct and punishment prescribed is as above.

7. The charge also does not disclose commission of any ear