The judgment established that a charge of intoxication requires conclusive evidence such as a blood or urine test, and the alleged odour of liquor emitting from the mouth is insufficient to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of dismissal from police services.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable with the respondent Police Department and he was assigned the duty of Quarter Guard for 05.11.2008 from 10 -12, 6 -8 and 2 – 4 p.m. At 2 p.m., he was handed over the charge by one Rajesh Kumar and during the course of discharging his duties, he was found in a drunken condition. It was also reported that out of the 5 bullets in his possession, he loaded one of them in the chamber of his rifle and kept four bullets in his pocket. The said incident was reported by one Girdhari Lal, Store Assistant and soon after being reported, the bullets were taken back from the possession of the petitioner and he was sent for medical examination at 3:45 p.m. in the day. According to the medical examination, the petitioner was drunk but was not intoxicated. On the basis of the medical report, four charges were framed against him and the charge-sheet was issued to him. In pursuance to the charge-sheet, a departmental inquiry was conducted against him and the Reserve Inspector, the Enquiry Officer, after recording the evidence of the witnesses submitted the inquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, Churu. After the report of the preliminary inquiry being submitted, the disciplinary authority took up the proceedings and found the charges against the petitioner to be proved. As a consequence, the petitioner was punished with the penalty of dismissal from services vide order dated 31.12.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police Bikaner, Range Bikaner and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2011. Aggrieved of the said orders, the present writ petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charges as levelled against him were not proved on record and hence, the punishment of dismissal from service was not valid. He submitted that a perusal of the medical report would clarify that the conclusion arrived was only on the basis of consumption of alcohol and no blood test or urine test as required under the Rules has been conducted and therefore, the conclusion as arrived at of the petitioner being drunk is of no consequence. In support of the said submission, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Charanjeet Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2008 (3) RLW 2634 (decided on 07.02.2008). It has further been argued by the learned counsel that so far as the allegation of misbehaving with the colleague is concerned, the same was neither a part of the first report made on 05.11.2008 at 3 p.m. nor was it part of the charges framed at the first stage. Learned counsel argued that the punishment of dismissal from services as imposed is totally disproportionate to the allegations even if held to be proved. In support of the said submission, learned counsel relied upon the ratio as laid down in L.Rs. of Narendrapal v. State & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3052/1995 (decided on 03.08.2007). It has also been argued that the statements of Bharat Singh wherein he specifically stated that the petitioner was not in a drunken state, have totally been discarded by the Enquiry Officer without any logic or reason. The non-compliance of the procedural requirement has also been made a ground of the arguments.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a case of gross misconduct on behalf of the petitioner firstly, being found in a drunken state on the place of duty and secondly, loading the gun without the prior permission of the competent Authority which is the basic requirement in terms of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. Learned counsel argued that it was proved on record that the petitioner was in a drunken state and that he had loaded one bullet in his gun which clearly revealed the intent