The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence, such as blood or urine tests, to prove intoxication. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of issuing show cause notices without predetermined minds and the need for proportionality in imposing punishments.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Sri Shivam Pandey learned counsel holding brief of Sri Rahul Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Srivastava learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 07.05.2012, 25.09.2012, 29.05.2012 and also challenging the order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1245 of 2013 and also order dated 29.05.2017 whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the instant case are that the petitioner herein was working as a constable in the Police Line, Varanasi. The allegation against the petitioner is that he misbehaved with his senior officer, Mr. Devi Dayal, being in an intoxicated condition, for which the complaint was made against him and he was placed under suspension and the following charge was framed against him.

^^vki iqfyl ykbZu okjk.klh esa dk;Zjr gSA fnuakd 15-12-2010 dsk le; yxHkx 17-30 cts Jh nsohn;ky] izfrlkj fujh{kd ¼f}rh;½ iqfyl ykbZu] okjk.klh ds lkeus u'ks dh gkyr esa v'kksHkuh; gjdr ,oa ve;kZfnr vkpj.k fd;sA iqfyl ykbZu esa vki u'khys inkFkZ dk lsou fd;s gq, ik;s x;s] ftlds QyLo:i vkidk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k mŒfuŒ lŒiqŒ Jh iapjke dUukSft;k] vkj{kh 1423 ukŒiqŒ izeksn dqekj] vkj{kh 2213 ukŒiqŒ nf/kpUnz] iqfyl ykbZu] okjk.klh }kjk iaŒ nhun;ky jktdh; fpfdRlky;] okjk.klh ls djk;k x;kA fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k esa 'kjkc ihus dh iqf"V gqbZA vki M;wVh ds nkSjku 'kjkc ihus rFkk iqfyl tSls vuq'kkflr cy es jgrs gq, iqfyl jsxqys'ku ds iSjk&373, dk ikyu u djus ds nks"kh ik;s x;s] ftuds laEc/ak esa mŒizŒ v/khuLFk Js.kh ds iqfyl vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh dh ¼n.M ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh&1991 ds fu;e 14¼1½ ds rgr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA mŒizŒ v/khuLFk Js.kh ds iqfyl vf/kdkjh dh ¼n.M ,ao vihy½ fu;ekoyh&1991 ds fu;e 14¼1½ ds vUrxZr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lEikfnr fd;s tkus gsrq eq>s ukfer fd;k x;k gSA^^

4. In reply to the said charges, the petitioner herein submitted his explanation dated 11.01.2011 and categorically submitted that on the date of alleged incident, he has not consumed the alcohol, as alleged, nor he has misbehaved with his senior. The petitioner has specifically submitted that he was sick for sometime, for which he used to consume the Ayurvedic medicines (Drakshasav) and on the date of alleged incident as well, he had consumed the baidhyanath (Drakshasav), which includes alcohol and a report was got prepared with mala fide intention against the petitioner herein. It is further submitted by the petitioner that before preparing the report with regard to his intoxication condition neither the urine test nor the blood test were conducted to arrive at the specific finding as to whether the petitioner had consumed the liquor and the medical report was prepared only by the external examination. After the explanation was submitted, the enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Kotwali, Varanasi and vide enquiry report dated 27.05.2011, the Enquiry Officer found the allegations against the petitioner as true and proved and proposed for punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service in the following terms:

5. Subsequent to the enquiry report, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi, issued a show cause notice dated 10.06.2011, against the petitioner in the following terms:

6. In response to the show cause notice dated 10.06.2011, the petitioner herein submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice wherein it was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the said show cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein with a predetermined mind, wherein the DIG has agreed with the proposed punishment of dismissal. Therefore, the said show cause notice was a merely formality. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police, vide order dated 07.5.2012, passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Against the said order dated 07.05.2012, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before