The petitioner, who served as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, has challenged the order dated 05.01.2018, contained in Memo No. 25, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur (respondent No. 5), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service as also the order dated 17.04.2018, contained in Memo No. 414, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur (respondent No. 4) by which the appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected.

2. The challenge to the aforesaid orders, referred to above, is on the ground that without any evidence, the Enquiry Officer has recommended for dismissal of the petitioner and no evidence was adduced during the inquiry for proving the charges against him. The other ground on which the order of punishment has been challenged is that the consumption of liquor by him could not be proved and the only basis for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had consumed liquor was the Breath Analyzer Test and, lastly, the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges levelled and said to be proved against the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Nathnagar Police Station, the Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge was not favourably disposed towards him and he was made victim of circumstances and was made accused in Nathnagar P.S. Case No. 155 of 2016 for having created ruckus after consuming liquor.

4. The petitioner was suspended by the Senior Superintendent of Police vide order dated 28.05.2016 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Before the issuance of the charge, the petitioner was asked for his reply to the aforesaid charge of misdemeanor of consuming liquor, to which the petitioner replied. The charges were framed a day after.

5. During the course of inquiry, the informant was not examined and the witness to the occurrence, who was named in the F.I.R., was also not examined. The report of the Breath Analyzer was taken as conclusive evidence without the petitioner being subjected to any blood or urine test, which was necessary to prove consumption of liquor. The Inquiry Report dated 20.11.2017, as has been urged, was based on no evidence at all.

6. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied, but a grievance has been raised that since the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur, only he could have issued the second show-cause notice and not the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur.

7. The order of dismissal dated 05.01.2018 clearly reflects that the opinion of the Enquiry Officer has been accepted and the recommendation made by him for dismissing the petitioner from service has been accepted and same punishment has been awarded to the petitioner without any application of mind as to what would have been the commensurate punishment for such a charge against the petitioner.

8. The appeal of the petitioner was also disposed off on 31.01.2018 with a cryptic order, affirming the order of dismissal dated 05.01.2018, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur. The Memorial of the petitioner, which was pending before the Director General of Police, Bihar Patna, was also rejected during the pendency of the writ petition vide order dated 03.10.2018.

9. What is evident from the records is that the second show-cause notice to the petitioner was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur and not by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur, who is the controlling authority of the petitioner and that no evidence appears to have been adduced in support of the charge against the petitioner.

10. The subject F.I.R. was lodged by one Md. Kaisar Alam, who has not been examined. Even the complainant/Santosh Sah was not examined. The only evidence, therefore, is the report o