On 1 July 2025, Patna High Court reinstates the Bihar Military Police Personnel who was dismissed, saying that Breath Analyzer Test alone is not sufficient for finding consumption of alcohol.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: In a landmark decision delivered on 25 June 2025, the Patna High Court, in Manoj Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 4181 of 2021), reinstated a government employee who had been dismissed based solely on a Breath Analyzer Test without corroborating blood or urine tests.
This case underscores crucial aspects of natural justice, due process in departmental inquiries, and the admissibility of evidence in disciplinary actions, particularly in the context of Bihar’s Prohibition Law.
ALSO READ: Patna High Court: Breath Analyzer Test Not Conclusive Proof of Alcohol Consumption
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Thakur, was a Class IV employee (Barber) with the Bihar Military Police-15 (BMP-15), Muzaffarpur. On 24 November 2016, he was allegedly found creating a nuisance under the influence of alcohol near Gate No. 2 of the police premises. An FIR (Excise Case No. 381 of 2016) was lodged under Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The petitioner was suspended and issued a charge memo, requiring a response to allegations of misconduct. In reply, he submitted a detailed defense.
During the departmental inquiry, the Conducting Officer examined three witnesses (one being a formal witness) and concluded that the petitioner was guilty of creating a public nuisance under the influence of alcohol, thereby violating government excise rules.
Following this, a second show-cause notice was issued, which the petitioner also replied to. However, his response was not accepted, and the final order of dismissal was passed.
The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of punishment, preferred appeal that got rejected. Hence the petitioner filed writ petition in this Court.
Argument of the Learned Advocate
Argument of learned advocate for petitioner:
The learned advocate of the petitioner contended that the entire allegation on the petitioner is on the basis of Breath Analyzer Test.
However, such test cannot be the conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol in absence of any urine and blood test.
The issue was considered in Manju Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors. [CWJC No. 2590 of 2022], where the Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra [(1971) 3 SCC 930], held that signs like the smell of alcohol, unsteady gait, incoherent speech, or dilated pupils are not sufficient to prove alcohol consumption. Such a conclusion must be supported by medical evidence, specifically a blood or urine test.
The petitioner argued that since no blood or urine test was conducted, the Breath Analyzer report alone could not serve as valid evidence to prove intoxication. Citing Manju Devi v. State of Bihar, where similar facts led the Court to quash a dismissal based solely on a Breath Analyser test, the petitioner emphasized the lack of admissible evidence.
Additional reliance was placed on Munna Lal v. Union of India [(2010) 15 SCC 399] and Jawahar Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [2019(2) PLJR 156], both of which underscored the need for reliable medical proof. It was further submitted that the disciplinary and appellate orders were vague and lacked reasoning, as they failed to address or evaluate the petitioner’s defence.
Argument of learned advocate for state:
The learned advocate for state countered the petitioner’s claims by asserting that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and without procedural flaws.
It was submitted that the petitioner was clearly found in an intoxicated state while causing a disturbance at the jail gate, and this was supported by witness testimonies during the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer, upon finding the charges substantiated, submitted a report, after which the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice.
Despite being given ample opportunity to defend himself, the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The disciplinary authority, after considering his response, found it unconvincing and issued the dismissal order accordingly.
Furthermore, the State argued that courts, while exercising judicial review, cannot re-evaluate evidence, especially when departmental charges are assessed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities rather than strict legal proof. Since the petitioner’s appeal was also dismissed, no interference with the dismissal order is warranted.
Judgment and Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Patna High Court, presided by Justice Harish Kumar, set aside the dismissal of the petitioner on the ground that the departmental proceedings and the evidence relied upon suffered from serious legal deficiencies.
Before concluding, the Court examined the memo of charge, which specifically alleged that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and behaving in a disorderly manner. The Court noted that it was the Department’s responsibility to substantiate this allegation with concrete evidence.
However, the only evidence presented was a Breath Analyzer Test report. Citing repeated rulings by both the Supreme Court and this Court, the Bench reiterated that conclusive proof of alcohol consumption requires blood or urine test results.
A review of the case record and inquiry report revealed that no such medical tests were conducted. Regarding the criminal case filed against the petitioner, the Court observed that it is still pending and the trial has not yet concluded.
The Court found that although a Presenting Officer was said to be appointed, no formal opinion was recorded, and the inquiry mainly relied on the pending Excise Case and judicial custody,both insufficient to prove alcohol consumption. It reiterated that disciplinary action must be evidence-based and cannot stand where procedures are flawed or proof is lacking.
Referring to Munna Lal v. Union of India [(2010) 15 SCC 399], the Court noted that
“Dismissal without medical evidence was unjustified and the employee was reinstated with partial back wages.”
Likewise, in Jawahar Kumar Singh [2019(2) PLJR 156], dismissal based only on a Breath Analyser test was set aside as excessive and legally unsustainable.
In the present case, the Court held that
“Since the finding of alcohol consumption was unsupported by valid evidence, the inquiry Officer’s report was legally flawed and inadmissible. As a result, the dismissal based on such a report was unjustified.”
Additionally, the punishment order failed to show any consideration of the petitioner’s defence, violating Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The appellate authority also did not fulfill its duty under Rule 27 of the same Rules.
Accordingly, the Court declared the dismissal order (Memo No. 2518 dated 11.10.2019) and the appellate rejection (Memo No. 609 dated 05.03.2020) as unsustainable and set them aside.
The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service, with consequential benefits to be considered by the authorities in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324].
The Court held that
“The Breath Analyzer Test, which formed the sole basis for the charge of alcohol consumption, cannot be treated as conclusive proof in the absence of a blood or urine test, which is medically and legally required to substantiate such allegations.”
The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Thakur Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case No: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4181 of 2021
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Patna High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
