IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18548 of 2023 ====================================================== Mukhan Sao Son of Paras Sao Resident of Village-Lakhraon P. S. Muffasil, District-Siwan, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Director General, Bihar Military Police (BMP),Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Region, Gaya 5. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (24) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-09-2025 Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has moved the present Writ petition for the following reliefs: “i) Quashing of the Order bearing Memo No. 246 dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure 2) passed by the Superintendent of Police. Jehanabad by which the punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the Petitioner solely on the basis of Breath Analyzer Test: (ii) Quashing of the Order passed in Appeal wherein the Deputy Inspector General of Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 2/26 Police, Magadh Region, Gaya vide Order dated 13.03.2019, as contained in Memo no 475 rejected the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the punishment of dismissal from service and 30.12.2019, as (iii) Quashing of the Order dated31.10.2023 contained in Memo 1215/451741, passed by the Director General of Police, Patna, Bihar, wherein the Memorial Representation filed by the Petitioner has been rejected, and the Order of dismissal from service has been upheld; (iv) Quashing of the Order dated 31.10.2023 contained in Letter No. 53103, passed by the Superintendent of Police. Jehanabad. wherein without recording any reason and ignoring the judicial precedents in the matter of Imposition of penalty in Departmental Proceeding solely on the grounds of breath analyzer Report and being completely oblivious of the decision of the Government dated 15.06.2022 as contained in order No. 8817, the reply of the Petitioner hox been rejected and the Order of dismissal dated 20.05.2022 has been upheld; (v) Reinstatement of the Petitioner in service and direction for payment of all the entitlements for the period the petitioner has been rendered out of service” 3. This is the second round of litigation. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner bringing the brief facts relevant for the present petition has Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 3/26 submitted that the present petitioner was posted as daftary at Police Centre, Jehanabad and the main thrust of allegation against the petitioner was that on 23.07.2018 he had entered the police premises in an intoxicated state and consequently Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 581 of 2022 was instituted on 23.07.2018 against the Petitioner under sections 37(b) and 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Thereafter, vide District Order No. 1153/2018, departmental proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner and consequent thereto Departmental Inquiry 25 of 2018 came to be instituted against the petitioner vide Memo No. 2773 dated 03.09.2018. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that vide the aforementioned letter dated 03.09.2018, the petitioner was handed the articles of charge as well as the SDPO, Jehanabad was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and one P.R. Dinanath Singh posted at Police Centre, Jehanabad was appointed as Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted vide memo no. 470 of 2018 on 16.09.2018 wherein charges were found to be true against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had submitted his reply/explanation to the competent authority, denying the charges, as levelled, against him and challenged the legality of the proceedings, which Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 4/26 according to him, were being conducted without any independent evidence. 5. It is next submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the petitioner in his reply had categorically explained that he was suffering from liver ailment and was on homeopathic medicines which would have resulted in a false reporting on the breath analyzer test which formed the sole basis for the entire allegation against the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that, on the date of occurrence, the petitioner had lost his purse/wallet, wherein certain important documents/cards were also present. The petitioner forthwith went to lodge an F.I.R before the Jehanabad Police and he was also accompanied with one Pappu Kumar. It is alleged, that when the petitioner insisted the police officials to register the F.I.R, the police officials refused to register the F.I.R of the petitioner and asked him to come the next day. This led to an argument between the police officials at the police station and the petitioner, and in order to implicate the petitioner in a false case, the breath analyzer test was conducted which reported falsely on account of petitioner being under homeopathic medication. 7. It is thereafter submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that, the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, accepting Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 5/26 the findings of the Enquiry Officer in its entirety, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner vide order bearing Memo No. 246 dated 21.01.2019. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order imposing the punishment of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the D.I.G, Magadh Region, Gaya which was rejected vide order dated 13.03.2019 and the imposition of punishment of dismissal came to be confirmed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a Memorial Representation before the D.G.P, Bihar, which was also rejected vide order dated 30.12. 2019. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioner approached this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 362 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 17.04.2023, recording the categorical submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent State that pursuant to Letter No. 8817 dated 15.06.2022 which stated that departmental proceedings have to be stayed wherein allegation under section 37(b) of the Excise Act was solely maintained on the basis of breath analyzer test, this Court had disposed the aforesaid earlier writ petition for passing appropriate orders in light of the letter dated 15.06.2022 within three months. Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 6/26 9. It is further submitted that despite such categorical submission by the learned Counsel appearing for the state in the earlier writ petition and the order passed consequent thereto by this Court on 17.04.2023, the respondents slept over the matter for about 5 months. It is submitted that the petitioner even submitted a representation on 05.06.2023, before the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, however a notice asking the petitioner to appear at the Police Centre, Jehanabad was issued only on 30.09.2023. Consequently, the petitioner filed a written reply on 11.10.2023 controverting allegations levelled against him and prayed for the order of dismissal to be revoked. It is next submitted that the matter was finally heard on 31.10.2023, whereby without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and also without recording any reasons for such non-consideration, the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad vide order dated 31.10.2023 rejected the representation and upheld the earlier order dated 21.09.2019 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings and the impugned orders, i.e., punishment order dated 21.01.2019, the order of appeal dated 10.03.2019, the order rejecting the memorial dated 30.12.2019 and the final order passed on 31.10.2023 are in flagrant Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 7/26 violation of law and can not stand the scrutiny of law. It is submitted that the punishment order dated 21.01.2019 is not based on any evidence and the evidences produced before the authority are all formal in nature and can not by any means lead to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority has miserably failed to appreciate that the enquiry report is virtually based upon not even a shread of evidence that could conclusively lead to the conclusion of guilt of the petitioner. 11. It is emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the breath analyser test was also not exhibited nor its contents were proved in the report, which is the sole ground on which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service. Further in order to ascertain whether the petitioner had indeed consumed liquor or not, no blood or urine tests were ever conducted and the finding with regard to the consumption of alcohol is the sole ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer which has been blindly accepted in its totality as gospel truth by the disciplinary authority. It is therefore argued that the disciplinary authority had conducted the proceedings in a very casual manner and the findings of the Enquiry Officer which are purely conjectural in nature were accepted. It is next submitted that the finding of Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 8/26 consumption of alcohol by the petitioner could not have been arrived reasonably by the Disciplinary Authority in the absence of any blood/urine test and more so when the breath analyzer test was not proved. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the award of the punishment in the present case does not take into account the proportionality of the punishment vis-à-vis the alleged offence and for the fleabite, the most severe punishment has been imposed. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the D.I.G, Magadh Region, Gaya in appeal preferred by the petitioner is also totally non-speaking and without ascribing any reason and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. It is further submitted that the none of the grounds as taken in the appeal have been considered and no reasons have been recorded for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The fact that the order rejecting the appeal is absolutely non-speaking and unreasoned is clearly indicative of the mechanical rejection of the appeal, where the appellate authority has merely reiterated the averments of the disciplinary authority. 13. It is next submitted that the order passed by the D.G.P, Bihar is also absolutely non-speaking and does not take into consideration any of the submissions raised by the petitioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 9/26 14. The petitioner had ad-nauseum explained that the test of the breath analyzer could be solely relied to sustain and impose the punishment in absence of the any blood or urine test. The petitioner in his reply/explanation has relied upon several judicial precedents which were not considered by the respondents while passing the impugned orders. 15. Adverting to the letter dated 15.06.2022, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is evident that the same has been issued for the protection of the delinquent officers and therefore the same has to be interpreted in a manner which is beneficial to the interest of the petitioner. The same also re-affirms the stand of the petitioner that the breath analyzer test could not form the whole and sole ground for sustaining the allegation of consumption of alcohol in absence of blood/urine or other evidence. It is vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner could not be discriminated with that of other departmental proceedings which were withdrawn in light of the aforesaid letter dated 15.06.2022. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the counsel for the state appearing in the earlier writ petition before this Court had categorically submitted that the letter dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure P/7). It is submitted that the respondents could not deny the Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 10/26 applicability of the guidelines dated 15.06.2022 once the applicability of the same to the case of the petitioner has itself been admitted and recorded by this Court in its order dated 17.04.2023 passed in earlier Writ C.W.J.C 362 of 2023. 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire proceedings against the petitioner also suffers from grave procedural infirmities and therefore could not be sustained. 17. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority has recorded a finding of guilt which is clearly against the weight of evidence inasmuch as no one has deposed about witnessing the consumption of liquor by the petitioner. The petitioner having been terminated solely on the basis of breath analyzer test is untenable. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Jawahar Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar reported as 2019 (2) PLJR 156 and Rajiv Ranjan vs The State of Bihar (C.W.J.C No. 13546 of 2018). 18. The learned counsel for the state submits that the petitioner has been terminated on the basis of the breath analuzer test and has not said anything on the stand of the state taken earlier in the previous round of litigation, i.e., C.W.J.C 362 of 2023. Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 11/26 19. Head the submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record. 20. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner had challenged the termination order and its affirmation by the appellate authority as well as the order of rejection of memorial passed by the D.G.P. This Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. 362 of 2023 had disposed of the earlier writ petition which reads as under – “Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State are present. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out from the letter dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure- ‘7’ to the writ application) that the government has taken a decision that in such cases where the government employee has been proceeded in a disciplinary proceeding only for the reason that he has tested positive for liquor consumption in breath analyzer test, such cases are required to be withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees that the said policy decision would equally apply in respect of the petitioner. Mr. Ruchikar Jha, learned AC to SC-8 submits that in view of the said policy decision, he has instruction to say that the case of the petitioner would be revisited and considered within a period of three months. In view of the statements made on behalf of the State, this Court need not proceed with this matter. It is made clear that the Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 12/26 competent authority must pass an appropriate order in terms of the government’s decision within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will be open for the petitioner to move this Court afresh. This writ application stands disposed of accordingly.” 21. The decision taken by the Government to withdraw the proceedings against the government employee proceeded in the disciplinary proceeding only for the sole reason that he had tested positive for liquor consumption in breath analuser test reads as under – 17/06/22 forarq laokn çs"kd%& ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd iVuk A fo"k;%& lHkh vuqåiqåiå @ iqfyl mik/kh{kd @ vapy fujh{kd @ iqåfuå&lg&Fkkuk/;{k @ iqfyl fujh{kd&lg& t‚p çkf/kdkj iVuk ftyk vkjaHkd la[;k& 8817@jådkå] fnukad 15@06@22 iqfyl egkfujh{kd egksn; ¼e| fu"ks/k½ fcgkj] iVuk ds vnZ~/k ljdkjh i=kad&1842@e| fu"ks/k] fnukad 31-05-2022 ds }kjk çkIr funsZ'kksa ds vkyksd esa v/kksgLrk{kjh ds }kjk e| fu"ks/k ls lacaf/kr yafcr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh leh{kk dh xbZA leh{kk ds Øe esa ik;k x;k fd 'kjko lsou ls lacaf/kr vf/kdka'k ekeyk /kkjk&37 ¼ch½ esa dkaM çfrosfnr gq;s gSa rFkk blh vk/kkj ij foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh çkjaHk dh xbZ gSa iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd egksn; ¼dkfeZd½] fcgkj iVuk ds dk;kZy;] Kkikad&294@ih&1] fnukad&20-05-2022 ds }kjk çkIr funsZf'kr i= esa fcUnq la0&20 esa Li"V of.kZr gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa }kjk “dsoy Breath Analyzer Report ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi dks çekf.kr ekuus^^ ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr n.Mkns'k dks Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 13/26 fujLr fd;k x;k gS vr% vki lHkh dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vius&vius ikl e|fu"ks/k ls lacaf/kr yafcr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh@tk¡p] ftlesa 'kjkc lsou dh iqf"V dsoy Breath Analyzer Report ds vk/kkj ij ekuh xbA gS ,oa ftlesa Blood Sample ugha fy;k x;k gS ,sls lHkh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu dks =qfViw.kZ ekurs gq, vipkjh ds fo:) i;kZIr lk{; ds vHkko dk earO; nsdj rRdky lacaf/kr lafpdk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh 'kk[kk] uohu iqfyl dsUæ iVuk esa vxzrj dkjZokbZ gsrq 10 ¼nl½ fnuksa esa okil djuk lqfuf'pr djsaxsaA ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd iVukA 22. After the disposal, the State should have to withdraw the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in view of the letter dated 15.06.2022, but the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order dated 31.10.2023. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad has not discussed the letter dated 15.06.2022 and the order dated 17.04.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No.362 of 2023 by this Court. The consideration portion of the order dated 31.10.2023 reads as follows: ^^vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA iqfyl eq[;ky; }kjk fuxZr Guidelines fnukad 20-05-2022 dks çsf"kr gSA vipkjh dks fnukad& 21-01-2019 dks lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k x;k gS ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa vfHkys[k esa la/kkfjr lk{;ksa dh leh{kk ls ,oa iqfyl eq[;ky; ds i= rFkk bl foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vk;s lk{;ksa ,oa vfHkys[k ds xgu voyksduksijkar bl ekeys esa ikfjr rRdkyhu vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj ¼iqfyl v/kh{kd½ }kjk vipkjh ds lsok ls c[kkZLrxh ds vkns'k esa dksbZ la'kks/ku mfpr çrhr ugh gksrk gSA^^ Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 14/26 23. Against the order dated 31.10.2023, the present writ petition has been filed. 24. From the perusal of the impugned orders it appears that the sole basis upon which the charge against the petitioner has been sustained is the breath analyser test. 25. A Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1971(3) SCC 930 while considering question whether charge of rash and negligent driving after consuming alcohol was proved in the facts of the case therein or not, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that no conclusion with regard to consumption of alcohol by a person can be made on the fact that the appellants breath smells of alcohol, that his gait was unsteady, that his speech was incoherent and that his pupils were dilated. Consumption of alcohol can only be conclusively be ascertained by way of blood and urine test of the person suspected to have consumed alcohol. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noticed in the case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra) that the doctor had admitted that the person could smell of alcohol even without being under the influence of alcohol. 26. In Jawahar Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department & Ors. Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 15/26 reported as 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 3671 : (2019) 2 PLJR 156, a coordinate bench of this Court has held as under: “11. The power of punishment is always within the employers' discretion and Courts do not normally interfere with where there is no infirmity with the procedure. However, weighing all the factors, viz., the nature of charges against the petitioner, the manner in which it is sought to be proved, no evidence of any past conduct of similar nature and perhaps lack of sensitivity in dealing with the case of the petitioner, this Court feels that the punishment is rather disproportionate. This Court says so for the reason that nothing but pandemonium is said to have been created and that also not during the period when the petitioner was on duty. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner is an employee of a uniformed service; nonetheless the gravity of the misconduct is not such that he be dismissed from the service. This Court feels that an unduly harsh punishment has been meted out to the petitioner and that also when the charges were sought to be proved in a most rudimentary manner by relying upon the Breath Analyzer report, which report could well be wrong as well. 12. The grossly excessive/disproportionate punishment to the petitioner goads this Court in setting-aside the order of dismissal by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur (respondent No. 5) and the order passed in appeal Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 16/26 by the Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur (respondent No. 4) as well as the order rejecting the Memorial of the petitioner by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 3). The matter is, therefore, remitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur (respondent No. 5) for writing out a fresh order in accordance with law, taking into account whether the petitioner has ever been charged of such offence and whether the charges against him have been conclusively proved and, if so, what would be the commensurate punishment vis-a vis the nature of charge levelled upon him. The aforesaid order be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 27. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Manoj Kumar Thakur vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 4181 of 2021) has observed as under: 13. It would be pertinent to observe that in case of Munna Lal (supra), wherein the 3- Judge Bench of the Apex Court while considering the appeal preferred by the delinquent, who was charged with dereliction of duty and misconduct under influence of liquor, which led to his dismissal and duly affirmed by the High Court, has set aside the impugned order and held that in absence of any material to support the consumption of liquor and the evidence was found not satisfactory to prove that he was found with Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 17/26 any alcohol and if there is no medical report, the charge levelled against the appellant was not satisfactorily proved. The Court further held that in the absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary authority should not have imposed such penalty, the appellant was reinstated with 50% of the back wages for the period he was out of service. 14. Similarly, in the case of Jawahar Kumar Singh (supra), while the delinquent was facing identical charge of creating ruckus after consuming liquor leading to his dismissal was questioned before this Court; the learned coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the impugned order of dismissal and relegated the matter by observing that an unduly harsh punishment has been meted out to the petitioner and that also when charges were sought to be proved in a most rudimentary manner by relying upon the Breath Analyser report, which report could well be wrong as well. 15. Now coming to the case in hand, once the finding of consumption of alcohol is based upon no evidence, the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer itself vitiates in law and thus inadmissible. Hence, based upon such enquiry report, if the petitioner has been inflicted with the order of extreme punishment, the same is wholly sustainable. Moreover, the impugned order of punishment also does not reflect the application of mind to the defence taken by the petitioner as is required under Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 18/26 Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and thus the same is held to be cryptic, and passed without application of mind. Similar mistake has also been committed by the Appellate Authority, who failed to discharge his obligation, as is required under Rule 27 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.” 28. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying upon Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra) in Manju Devi vs. State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary and Others reported as 2024 SCC Online PAT 2324 has observed that breath analyzer test could not be the sole basis for sustaining disciplinary inquiry and observed as under: “ 7. In Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani Vrs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no conclusion with regard to consumption of alcohol by a person can be made on the facts that the appellant's breathe was smelling of alcohol, that his gait was unsteady, that his speech was incoherent and that his pupils were dilated. Consumption of alcohol can only be ascertained by way of blood and urine test by a person suspected to have consumed alcohol. 8. In the instant case, there is also no allegation that at the time of arrest the gait of the original petitioner was unsteady, he was speaking incoherently or that his pupils were dilated. Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 19/26 9. In the above stated report, the Honble Supreme Court found that the blood and urine examination of the appellant was not done and finally held that mere smelling of alcohol is not enough to hold that the petitioner consumed alcohol on the date of his apprehension. 10. For the reasons stated above, I have no other alternative but to hold that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and based his order of punishment of the original petitioner of breathe analyzer report which cannot be said to be a conclusive report of consumption of alcohol. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is not in a position to uphold the impugned order dated 11th January, 2020, communicated on 15th January, 2020, passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul against the original petitioner as well as the order passed in appeal by the Commissioner based on the order dated 11th January, 2020.” 29. Form the afore-quoted judgments it is clear that the breath analyzer test could not be the sole basis to conclusively arrive at a finding that a person had consumed alcohol. It is settled that the threshold in a disciplinary proceeding is much lower, i.e., preponderance of possibilities and not that of beyond reasonable Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 20/26 doubt, however, placing reliance completely on the breath analyzer test would not even meet that lower threshold. 30. Moreover, the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 cannot be sustained as the order is cryptic and non-speaking order, without considering the show cause of the petitioner and without considering the letter dated 15.06.2022 and order dated 17.04.2023 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 362 of 2023. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, in paragraph nos. 46 and 47, held as follows: “46. The position in the United States has been indicated by this Court in S.N. Mukherjee 23 in SCC p. 602, para 11: AIR para 11 at p. 1988 of the judgment. This Court held that in the United States the courts have always insisted on the recording of reasons by administrative authorities in exercise of their powers. It was further held that such recording of reasons is required as "the courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review". In S.N. Mukherjee this Court relied on the decisions of the US Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corpn. and Dunlop v. Bachowski in support of its opinion discussed above. Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 21/26 47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 22/26 the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered.This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor2.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 23/26 fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torja v. SpainRB EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxforde, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions" (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".” 32. It is categorically noted that the present proceedings is the second round of litigation. The matter has already traveled from the impugned order of dismissal, to appeal, and then to the stage of order rejecting the memorial. Subsequently the matter was remanding back by this Court for fresh consideration in light of the letter dated 17.08.2022 and finally the same had culminated into the order passed by S.P., Jehanabad on 31.10.2023. Now, at this belated stage, the respondent state can not turn around and raise fresh grounds by way of its counter affidavit which have pertinently not even been discussed while passing the impugned orders. The same is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 24/26 Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 which has been reiterated in State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724 “ 4. There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272] of which the following paragraph deserves extraction : (SCC p. 417, para 8) “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16 : 1952 SCR 135] : (AIR p. 18, para 9) Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 25/26 ‘9. … public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.’ Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 33. It is also noted that the petitioner was working in the capacity of a daftary and is in his fag end of his service. 34. Consequently, in view of the fact that the impugned orders are non-speaking and cryptic in nature, the dismissal from service can not be sustained. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited (supra) and in the light of the discussions made above, this application is allowed. Patna High Court CWJC No.18548 of 2023 dt.01-09-2025 26/26 35. The termination order bearing Memo No.246 dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure-P/2), Memo No.475 dated 13.03.2019 (Annexure-P/3), order dated 30.12.2019 contained in Memo no.1215/451741 (Annexure-P/5) and order dated 31.10.2023 as contained in letter no.5103 (Annexure-P/12) are hereby quashed. 36. The petitioner shall be allowed to join his services forthwith and he shall be entitled to all the back-wages and all consequential benefits. anand/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NA CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 16.09.2025 Transmission Date NA