Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32011 (PAT)

Avadhesh Prasad Singh @ Avadhesh Singh v. The State of Bihar

CWJC/1353/2025 · 2026-01-07

Bibek Chaudhuri

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1353 of 2025 ====================================================== Avadhesh Prasad Singh @ Avadhesh Singh S/o Tarani Prasad Singh, R/o House No.- 32, Sherullahpur ( Nand Gaon ), L.B.S. Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Patna, L.B.S. Nagar, Dist.- Patna, Bihar- 800023, worked as Constable- 724, East Champaran at Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bettiah, Bihar. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5. The Superintendent of Police-cum-Disciplinary Authority, East Champaran at Motihari. 6. The Enquiry Officer -cum-S.H.O., Pakadidayal P.S., East Champaran. 7. The S.H.O., Rajiv Nagar Police Station, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 5 07-01-2026 The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- a.) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the dismissal order bearing Motihari Ziladesh No -178/2024, gyapank 294 dated 31.01.2024 passed in Motihari District Departmental proceeding no 04/2024 issued under signature of Superintendent of police, East Champaran at Motihari whereby and whereunder petitioner has been dismissed Patna High Court CWJC No.1353 of 2025(5) dt.07-01-2026 2/5 from service on the last date of his retirement b.) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant all financial and consequential relief from the date of his suspension till the date of attainment of the age of superannuation and also to pay all his pensionary benefit. c.) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the appellate order bearing Gyapank 462 dated 19.02.2025 passed in Motihari district departmental proceeding No. 04/2024 under Signature of DIG, Champaran Region, Bettiah upholding the dismissal order passed by SP Motihari whereby and whereunder petitioner has been dismissed from service on last date of his retirement. d.) Pass any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Factual aspect of the case is that on 9th September, 2023, a case under Section 30(a)/37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 was registered against the petitioner in Patna High Court CWJC No.1353 of 2025(5) dt.07-01-2026 3/5 Rajiv Nagar Police Station, being Case No. 600/2023, dated 9th September, 2023 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was found in intoxicated condition consuming liquor and countrymade liquor measuring about 1.250ml was seized from his possession. The petitioner was arrested and in view of the institution of a criminal case the petitioner, being a constable of police, was initially suspended and a departmental inquiry was held. The departmental inquiry was culminated on 31st January, 2024 and on the basis of the report of the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from his service under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed. 4. The appellate order is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner refers to an earlier Bench’s decision in the case of Dharmraj Singh Vs the State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 14846 of 2021, dated 9th May, 2024, wherein, this Court held that Breath Analyzer Report is not a conclusive proof of consuming the liquor by a person. In Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs State of Patna High Court CWJC No.1353 of 2025(5) dt.07-01-2026 4/5 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 petitioner’s breath was smelling of alcohol, that his gait was unsteady, that his speech was incoherent and that his pupils were dilated. The consumption of alcohol can only be ascertained by way of blood and urine test of a person suspected to have consumed alcohol. 6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after arrest, the petitioner was not examined medically and sample of blood and urine of the petitioner were not tested. Therefore, applying the ratio in Bachubhai’s case, the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner ought to be rejected. 7. The learned Advocate on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits referring to the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not implicated in a criminal case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for consumption of liquor, which is prohibited in the State of Bihar. The petitioner was also found in possession of 1.250ml of countrymade liquor and the said countrymade liquor was seized from his possession. 8. The seizure list has been brought in record. It is found Patna High Court CWJC No.1353 of 2025(5) dt.07-01-2026 5/5 from the seizure list that countrymade liquor measuring about 1.250ml was recovered from the petitioner, for illegal possession of countrymade liquor, he is liable to prosecuted under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. 9. Even if it is, prima facie, considered that the respondents or the investigating agency failed to produce adequate evidence in support of consumption of countrymade liquor by the petitioner, it is not disputed that he was arrested while in possession of countrymade liquor. 10. Therefore, a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner being a constable is also a member of law enforcing agency. 11. Considering such aspect of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned, dated 31st January, 2024. 12. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed. Jyoti Kumari/- (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) U