JUDGMENT

1. This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of an order dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Supaul, whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. The petitioner's appeal has been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa, by an order dated 24.05.2019, which is also under challenge in the present writ application.

3. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted as constable (driver) in Supaul Police Station. Allegedly, on 15.09.2018 a video clip had become viral in which the petitioner was seen as consuming alcohol. An enquiry was ordered by the Inspector General of Police, whereafter, the Sub Inspector of Police namely, Deonandan Das conducted an enquiry and found the petitioner consuming alcohol. An F.I.R. was registered against him on 16.09.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) & 37(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He was put under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Supaul by an order dated 17.09.2018 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. The said video clip, which had become viral, was telecast by some news channels also. A departmental proceeding was thereafter initiated against him with issuance of chargesheet on 27.09.2018. The chargesheet has been brought on record by way of Annexure-4 to the writ application. The chargesheet refers to an enqury conducted by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Supaul dated 17.09.2018 in respect of the said video clip becoming viral. It is evident from the charge-sheet that the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Supaul, had reported that the said video clip, in which the petitioner was seen consuming alcohol, had become viral and a photograph was also published in the newspaper. In the said report, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer had also mentioned that the petitioner was consuming alcohol in a glass and a bottle filled with alcohol was found near him. Following list of witnesses and list of documents on which the department intended to rely upon in support of the charge were furnished along with chargesheet:-

List of witnesses:-

(i) Reserved Sub Inspector, 1st, Supaul.

(ii) Station House Officer, Supaul.

(iii) Reader, Sub Divisional Offices office, Supaul.

The list of documents:-

(I) Supaul District Order no. 1086 / 2018

(ii) FIR of Supaul PS. Case No. 554 of 2018

(iii) Memo No. 3035/GO and Memo No. 888 / 2018 both dated 17.09.2016.

4. The First document mentioned in the list of documents i.e. Supaul District Order no. 1086/2018 was the order whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. The second document was the First Information Report. The third document was Memo No. 3035/GO dated 17.09.2018 was a communication made by the Superintendent of Police to Sub Divisional Police Officer, to enquire into the incident which was circulating through the video clip which had become viral in which the petitioner was seen consuming alcohol.

5. An Inquiring Authority and a Presenting Officer were appointed. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegation made against him in the chargesheet. The Inquiring Authority submitted his report on 16.10.2018. There were three witnesses examined namely, Basudeo Rai, Sub Inspector of Police-cum-S.H.O., Triveniganj; Ajay Kumar Jha, Reserved Sub Inspector 1st, Supaul and constable Vinod Kumar working as Typist in the office of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Supaul. The Inquiring Authority in the said report concluded that when the petitioner was posted as constable in Supaul Police Station, a video clip in which the petitioner was seen consuming alcohol had become viral and that news concerning the petitioner's said conduct was published in the newspaper. He further concluded that under the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Supaul, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, had conducted an enquiry