ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order as contained in memo no. 20 dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh (the respondent no. 2) whereby following punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner:

(i) Forfeiture of one annual increment which would be equivalent to two black marks and the same would not affect his future annual increments.

(ii) No payment other than the payment received by him during the period of suspension i.e. from 31.10.2012 to 04.03.2013 (total 124 days) would be payable and the said period has been adjusted in half-earned leave.

(iii) The period of dismissal from service w.e.f. 05.03.2013 to 20.09.2022 would be considered as ‘No Work, No Pay’ for which no amount would be disbursed to him. Moreover the said period would be adjusted as extraordinary leave.

2. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3261 of 2014 challenging the order as contained in memo no. 115 dated 05.03.2013 whereby he was dismissed from service as well as the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in memo no. 1315 dated 16.08.2013 whereby the appeal preferred by him was rejected. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2021 partly allowed the said writ petition with following observations:

“6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents annexed with the respective affidavit and the averments made therein; it appears that the petitioner has been alleged for the charge that he used to leave duty place without permission and take alcohol with the villagers. The other allegation was that after taking liquor he used filthy language with the Superior Officer. This part of the charge has not been proved by the Inquiry Officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority without taking into consideration the reply to the show-cause notice pass the order of termination by holding that all the charges has been proved.

It further transpires that the petitioner has taken specific stand that no medical examination has been conducted for holding the charge for taking liquor; however the same was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. From the entire enquiry report/other relevant documents it appears that not even a single time the petitioner has been sent for medical examination; though the charge was general in nature that the petitioner frequently goes to the village and takes liquor with the villagers.

7. It has been held in catena of judgments that to punish a person on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol in a work place; a proper test report of the level and amount of alcohol of blood and urine is necessary. Mere oral evidence to punish a person to the extent of termination has been condemned by the Court.

In the instant case admittedly; one part of the charge has not been proved that he has misbehaved with the Superior Officer over telephone. So far as other part of the charge that the petitioner frequently uses to take drink with the villagers after leaving the work place; it is an admitted position that not even on a single occasion the petitioner has been sent for medical examination; what to say about the present charge. Thus, only on the basis of oral evidence of two Police Constables; the order of termination on the ground of taking liquor that too without any independent witness is too harsh and excessive.

It further transpires that this ground which has been taken by the petitioner in his reply to the second show-cause notice has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority.

8. In this view of the matter, the instant writ application is partly allowed. The impugned order of dismissal from service as contained in Memo No.115 dated 5.3.2013 as well as the appellate order as contained in Memo No.1315 dated 16.08.2013, are hereby, quashed and set aside.

9. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and pass a fresh o