The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to prove charges in a disciplinary proceeding, the need for adherence to natural justice principles, and the entitlement to a reasonable opportunity to defend oneself.

JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

1. The present petition has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video Conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2019, passed by the Commandant, BMP-4, Dumraon, Buxar, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service as also for quashing the order dated 01.01.2020, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Military Police, Central Zone, Patna, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was sent on deputation from BMP-4, Dumraon to the Office of Additional Director General, Military police, Bihar, Patna by command certificate dated 23.11.2016, whereafter the petitioner had proceeded for joining at Patna and for that purpose, when he reached Dumraon station to board Vibhuti Express, he found that the train had started moving, hence he had boarded the AC coach which was in front of him, however this act of the petitioner was protested by the Coach Attendant and he had misbehaved with the petitioner. The petitioner had then alighted at Arrah station for lodging a complaint but his complaint was not entertained and on the contrary, an F.I.R. was lodged against him bearing Arrah Rail P.S. Case No. 112 of 2016 dated 23.11.2016 under Sections 37(a)(b) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act and Section 145 of the Railway Act.

4. Thereafter, by an order dated 10.12.2016, a charge-sheet was issued and charges were framed against the petitioner pertaining to misbehaving with the passengers of the AC Coach in a drunken state leading to filing of an FIR bearing Arrah Rail P.S. Case No. 112 of 2016 as also arrest of the petitioner and it was alleged that the said behaviour of the petitioner amounts to gross indiscipline, irresponsible behaviour, unruly behaviour, intrusion, carelessness, criminal behaviour, whimsical/wild behaviour and has tarnished the image of the police. The petitioner had filed his reply and then the Inquiry Officer had submitted his Inquiry report dated 03.05.2017, finding the allegations levelled against the petitioner to be true. A second show-cause notice dated 24.10.2018 was then issued to the petitioner, to which he had submitted his reply and then the order of punishment, dismissing the petitioner from service, dated 29.03.2019 was passed. The petitioner had, then filed an appeal, however the same has also stood dismissed by an order dated 01.01.2020.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is a case of no evidence, inasmuch as neither the officials nor the passengers of A.C. Coach of Vibhuti Express, with whom the petitioner is alleged to have had an altercation in a drunken state, have been examined nor the informant of F.I.R. in question has been examined nor the doctor who had conducted the F.S.L. test has been examined. Moreover, it is submitted that the F.S.L. report of the blood and urine sample of the petitioner has been found to be containing zero alcohol, hence it has been proved that the petitioner had not consumed liquor. It is submitted that in fact, a bare perusal of the inquiry report dated 03.05.2017 would show that the Inquiry Officer has also not found any evidence either regarding the petitioner having consumed any liquor or any witness having supported the allegation of altercation having taken place in between the passengers and the petitioner. Nonetheless, a perfunctory and perverse inquiry report has been submitted against the petitioner.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State Sri. Suman Jha (AC to AAG-3) has submitted that there is no procedural irregularity in the present case and this Court would not sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion. It is also submitted that the petitioner had admittedly travelled in