E-Paper
External examination insufficient to hold someone guilty of consuming alcohol: Allahabad HC
“Mere external examination is not sufficient proof to hold a person guilty of consuming alcohol, and it cannot be concluded that he was in an intoxicated condition.”
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere external examination of a person is not sufficient proof to establish that they are in an intoxicated condition. The court emphasised the need for blood and urine tests to conclusively determine intoxication.
While allowing a writ petition filed by police constable Jai Mangal Ram, who was dismissed for alleged inappropriate behavior while intoxicated on duty, a division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta ordered the reinstatement of the constable in service.
“In this case, the petitioner was taken to the medical officer who only externally examined him and, having detected the smell of alcohol, concluded that he had consumed alcohol. Therefore, mere external examination is not sufficient proof to hold a person guilty of consuming alcohol, and it cannot be concluded that he was in an intoxicated condition,” the court added.
The petitioner was working as a constable in the police lines of Varanasi district. The allegation against him was that he misbehaved with his senior officer, being in an intoxicated condition, for which a complaint was made against him, leading to his suspension and later dismissal from service.
After reviewing the entire departmental inquiry, the court stated in its decision passed on December 8, “We are of the considered opinion that no charge of misbehavior with seniors/colleagues due to intoxication was proved against the petitioner during the inquiry, as no urine or blood test of the petitioner was conducted. Since the punishment order had been passed in violation of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice, it is rendered null and void.
