Om Kumar Srivastava Pno No.040470069 v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an enquiry report was submitted on 12.12.2022 by the disciplinary authority and on the basis of such preliminary enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 19.03.2023 and called for an explanation from the petitioner with regard to the proposed punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of three years. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice on 25.03.2023 alleging that he had not consumed liquor while he was on duty. He also stated that the enquiry officer failed to submit any documentary evidence showing that the petitioner had consumed liquor during duty hours. The disciplinary authority, without considering any fact mentioned by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice, passed the impugned punishment order on

25.04.2023. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner submitted a departmental appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1991"). The appellate authority rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved by the punishment order and the appellate order, petitioner filed Claim Petition No.1667 of 2024 (Om Srivastava vs. State of U.P. & Others) on 05.08.2024 before the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. In the written statement filed by the respondents to the said claim petition, the respondents denied the case set up by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit and during the course of arguments, the respondents filed a medical report dated 17.05.2022 on 02.09.2025. From a perusal of the medical report submitted by the Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Moradabad, it is evident that the doctor concerned has failed to take the blood and urine samples of the petitioner to prove that he had consumed liquor while on duty. A copy of the medical report dated 17.05.2022 has been filed as Annexure-11 to the petition.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has decided the claim petition by partly allowing the same. It has 3 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 modified the punishment order dated 25.04.2023 and the appellate order dated 10.05.2024 according to its own conclusion drawn in paragraph 9 of the judgment. It observed, without jurisdiction, that since the misconduct had been partly proved, the punishment order was being modified and instead of withholding one increment for a period of three years, it directed withholding of one increment for a period of one year. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, as is evident from paragraph 8 of the judgment and order dated 06.10.2025, the disciplinary authority failed to produce any documentary evidence showing that the blood and urine samples of the petitioner had been taken.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment rendered in Dashrath Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2022) 3 UPLBEC 2034, wherein this Court held that where a delinquent employee is alleged to be in a drunken state, a finding of intoxication should be based on blood and urine tests. Merely because he appeared drunk and smelled of alcohol, it could not be said that he was drunk. It has been submitted that according to law laid down by the Supreme Court, if the Tribunal found that there was no evidence to show that the delinquent employee was guilty of the charge, then the Tribunal could only have set aside the punishment order. It was not within its jurisdiction to substitute the punishment with another punishment which it found fit in the circumstances of the case.

7. We have gone through the written statement filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, reference of which has been given in the impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2025. In the written statement, it has been set out that while the petitioner was posted as Instructor in Police Training School, Moradabad on 17.05.2022, the petitioner under the influence of alcohol, beat up his wife, Smt. Rani Devi and she had dialed 112 police helpline. As a result of such distress call, Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar and Head Constable Prem Raj reached the police lines and found the petitioner creating a ruckus in the police lines. He was so drunk that he was not stable on his legs and was repeatedly falling down. Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar and Head Constable Prem Raj took the petitioner to the police station first and thereafter to the District Hospital, Moradabad for medical examination, where the doctor found the petitioner to be drunk. Initially, a preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, where 4 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 the petitioner was found guilty of taking alcohol and acting in a manner detrimental to the image of the police in the eyes of general public. A regular disciplinary enquiry was held thereafter; statements of departmental witnesses were recorded; the petitioner was given opportunity of cross- examination and full hearing. An enquiry report was thereafter submitted finding the petitioner guilty and on the basis thereof, a show cause notice was issued to him, to which the petitioner replied. After consideration of his reply, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order and the appeal was rejected.

8. We have also gone through the medical examination report prepared by the Medical Officer on duty in District Hospital, Moradabad, wherein it has been stated that smell of alcohol was coming from the breath of the patient. Findings regarding other parameters have not been given, but with regard to the pupils of the petitioner a finding has been given of Medical Surveillance Monthly Report (MSMR). It was also stated by the doctor on duty that the petitioner had consumed alcohol but he was not in an intoxicated state.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Dashrath Singh (supra), where the case of the petitioner was that there was no conclusive medical examination done and no proper blood or urine tests was conducted to prove the allegation of alcohol consumption. The Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930 and this Court in Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India, (Writ-A No.67355 of 2007 decided on 15.05.2019) reported in 2019 SCC Online All 5491 and in Shiv Raj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors (Writ-A No.2230 of 2014) decided on

28.03.2018 reported in 2018 SCC Online All 7442 held that unless alcohol consumption is proved beyond doubt through proper urine and blood tests, it cannot be said that the delinquent employee was under the influence of alcohol. In the said case, it had also been submitted that the disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment, should have taken into account the surrounding circumstances, such as how long the employee had served and what his conduct had been in the past. Instead of awarding an order of dismissal, a lesser punishment could have been awarded by the disciplinary authority, which would have sufficed. The Hon'ble Single Bench allowed the writ petition on the ground that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer 5 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 that the delinquent employee was in a drunken state only on the basis of the employee smelling of alcohol was absolutely erroneous. If an allegation has been made regarding drunkenness, urine and blood tests ought to have been conducted. The disciplinary authority, while awarding punishment, should have considered the past conduct of the employee and the fact that he had not earlier been involved in indiscipline.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Munna Lal vs. Union of India and Ors, Civil Appeal No.6510 of 2009 reported in 2010 (15) SCC 399, where the appellant, a Sub Inspector working at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, was found to be in a drunken condition while on shift duty from 07:00 hrs. to 13:00 hrs. at the Indian Airlines Cargo gate. The immediate superior officer of the appellant, on reaching the office, felt the smell of alcohol and suspected that the appellant must have been in a drunken condition. He was taken to the airport dispensary for medical check-up. The doctor on duty examined him and stated that the appellant was conscious though incoherent in speech, his pupils were equal and normal, his pulse and B.P. were normal and there was an element of doubt about alcohol and suspicion of mild smell of alcohol and for confirmation he had referred the employee for further medical check-up to Safdarjang Hospital. The appellant had contended that on that day he was ill and was taking medicines and this must have caused the smell of alcohol. The enquiry officer relied upon the incomplete report of the doctor at the airport dispensary and held that the appellant's case was a confirmed case of intoxication.

11. The Supreme Court observed that the evidence was not satisfactory to prove that the employee was under the effect of alcohol. He was also not taken to Safdarjang Hospital as suggested by the doctor on duty at the airport dispensary. Since the charges could not be proved satisfactorily, the penalty of dismissal was set aside by the Supreme Court and the employee was reinstated in service and directed to get 50% of the back wages for the period he was out of service.

12. We have gone through the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, wherein the submissions made by the petitioner in the claim petition have been recorded, thereafter the submissions in the written statement and the 6 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 rejoinder affidavit have been recorded. Consideration of the petitioner's case has been made by the Tribunal from paragraph 6 onwards. The Tribunal recorded that Smt. Rani Devi, wife of the petitioner had called the police helpline No. 112 and police had arrived from police station Civil Lines and found the petitioner in a drunken state and had therefore taken him to the police station, from where he was sent to District Hospital, Moradabad for medical examination. The Tribunal considered the preliminary enquiry report, the regular disciplinary enquiry report and the facts of the case and thereafter gave its finding in paragraph 8 and 9, wherein it observed that at the time when the petitioner was found drunk, fighting and beating his wife in the police lines, he was on duty but in his residence. His wife, who was the complainant, later resiled from her statement, saying that there was only normal matrimonial disturbance between her and her husband. The Tribunal considered the medical report and also the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court that blood and urine tests ought to have been done in such a case. Such procedure was not followed. However, the Tribunal observed that the conduct of the petitioner was not proper conduct of a member of the disciplined force. In the punishment order, other misconduct of the petitioner had also been mentioned while imposing punishment by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal found the petitioner's misconduct to have been partly established and modified the punishment order. Instead of withholding one annual increment for three years with cumulative effect, only one annual increment was directed to be withheld for one year, which is a minor penalty.

13. Having gone through the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal (supra), we find that the said judgment turned on completely different facts. The delinquent employee in that case was dismissed from service without a confirmed medical opinion. In the case of Dashrath Singh (supra), this Court has found that the Hon'ble Single Judge referred to judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and to the fact that medical examination was done, but no conclusive medical opinion was given by the medical officer on duty. The Hon'ble Single Judge found the punishment of dismissal as excessive, considering the conduct of the petitioner, Dashrath Singh, taking into account that he had not been punished earlier and his conduct had always been satisfactory and he was regular in service. 7 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025

14. With regard to the petitioner, having gone through the medical report, we find that there is a definite opinion given by the Medical Officer on duty, District Hospital, Moradabad that the petitioner had consumed liquor, though he was not in an intoxicated state.

15. In Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with Criminal Appeal No.183 of 1970, where the appellant was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay for rash and negligent driving and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A I.P.C., in default R.I. for three months; three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 337 I.P.C., in default R.I. for six weeks; and three months R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in default R.I. for three weeks. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The High Court, on appeal, upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate. The High Court found that the appellant was drunk on that particular night and he was driving the car rashly and negligently at an excessively high speed.

16. The Supreme Court observed, on the arguments made by the counsel for the appellant, that although the appellant was examined by the doctor and his breath was smelling of alcohol and his gait was unsteady, the doctor had also admitted that a person placed in the circumstances in which the appellant was put as a result of the accident would be under a nervous strain and his gait might be unsteady. No urine test of the appellant was carried out and although blood of the appellant was sent for chemical analysis, no report of the analysis was produced by the prosecution. The Court, on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution, observed that it cannot be definitely held that the appellant was drunk at the time the accident occurred. In view of such observation, the criminal appeal was allowed.

17. In Shiv Raj Singh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court relied upon judgment rendered in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra) and also made observations with regard to procedural violation in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, including a defective show cause notice issued to the petitioner without a copy of the enquiry report.

18. It was in such background that the Court observed that the punishment of 8 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 dismissal was vitiated. In Krishna Kumar (supra), the petitioner was working as Head Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was found to be drunk and when he was posted at the polling booth during Parliamentary Elections, he resorted to unwanted fire by his carbine in an intoxicated condition, causing disruption in the election process. He was examined twice by medical officers in government dispensary. Both medical reports talked of normal behaviour, normal condition and conduct, and also very little smell of alcohol, which did not show that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of medical test. The allegation of 'drunkenness' levelled against the petitioner was not found to be proved only on the basis of observations made by the Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra), Shiv Raj Singh (supra) and Munna Lal (supra).

19. Even otherwise, the judgment in Krishna Kumar (supra) has been rendered by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court and we are sitting in Division Bench and examining perversity or legal infirmity, if any, in the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, U.P.

20. In the case of disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee, the degree of proof is preponderance of probability and not culpability beyond reasonable doubt. All that is required on the part of the disciplinary authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilty of the delinquent employee on the principal of preponderance of probability. This is precisely what was done by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority while dealing with the case of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee reported in (2025) 4 SCC 111 has observed in paragraph 37 and 38 as follows : "37. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to 9 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.

38. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in the Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, 1972 (4) SCC 618, wherein this Court held as follows: - “15. . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. . . .”

21. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that his wife had called the helpline No.112 and a Sub Inspector and Head Constable had been sent from police station Civil Lines, Moradabad to the residence of the petitioner. There were two statements of two eyewitnesses, i.e. the Sub Inspector and the Head Constable, regarding the petitioner being in an intoxicated state and behaving in an unruly manner. He was taken to the police station, Civil Lines and thereafter referred to the Chief Medical Officer, who sent him to the District Hospital, Moradabad for medical examination.

22. It is quite possible for a wife, when fearing dismissal of her husband, to take an about-turn and say that there was only a minor matrimonial altercation between her and her husband i.e. the delinquent employee.

23. The fact that the petitioner was creating a ruckus in the police lines campus has not been denied.

24. The Tribunal, being the first court of examination of facts, has 10 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 considered the preliminary enquiry report, the statements of the departmental witnesses, the regular disciplinary enquiry report and the punishment order. There were two charges against the petitioner: one related to having been drunk and behaving in a unruly manner and the other related to conduct likely to lower the image of police in the eyes of the general public. The Tribunal has given an appropriate finding in this regard. Moreover, instead of the major penalty of stopping one increment for three years with cumulative effect, a minor penalty has been imposed by modifying the punishment and appellate order, stopping one increment for a period of one year.

25. We find no good ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the judgment and order impugned.

26. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 17, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an enquiry report was submitted on 12.12.2022 by the disciplinary authority and on the basis of such preliminary enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 19.03.2023 and called for an explanation from the petitioner with regard to the proposed punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of three years. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice on 25.03.2023 alleging that he had not consumed liquor while he was on duty. He also stated that the enquiry officer failed to submit any documentary evidence showing that the petitioner had consumed liquor during duty hours. The disciplinary authority, without considering any fact mentioned by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice, passed the impugned punishment order on

25.04.2023. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner submitted a departmental appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1991"). The appellate authority rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved by the punishment order and the appellate order, petitioner filed Claim Petition No.1667 of 2024 (Om Srivastava vs. State of U.P. & Others) on 05.08.2024 before the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. In the written statement filed by the respondents to the said claim petition, the respondents denied the case set up by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit and during the course of arguments, the respondents filed a medical report dated 17.05.2022 on 02.09.2025. From a perusal of the medical report submitted by the Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Moradabad, it is evident that the doctor concerned has failed to take the blood and urine samples of the petitioner to prove that he had consumed liquor while on duty. A copy of the medical report dated 17.05.2022 has been filed as Annexure-11 to the petition.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has decided the claim petition by partly allowing the same. It has 3 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 modified the punishment order dated 25.04.2023 and the appellate order dated 10.05.2024 according to its own conclusion drawn in paragraph 9 of the judgment. It observed, without jurisdiction, that since the misconduct had been partly proved, the punishment order was being modified and instead of withholding one increment for a period of three years, it directed withholding of one increment for a period of one year. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, as is evident from paragraph 8 of the judgment and order dated 06.10.2025, the disciplinary authority failed to produce any documentary evidence showing that the blood and urine samples of the petitioner had been taken.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment rendered in Dashrath Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2022) 3 UPLBEC 2034, wherein this Court held that where a delinquent employee is alleged to be in a drunken state, a finding of intoxication should be based on blood and urine tests. Merely because he appeared drunk and smelled of alcohol, it could not be said that he was drunk. It has been submitted that according to law laid down by the Supreme Court, if the Tribunal found that there was no evidence to show that the delinquent employee was guilty of the charge, then the Tribunal could only have set aside the punishment order. It was not within its jurisdiction to substitute the punishment with another punishment which it found fit in the circumstances of the case.

7. We have gone through the written statement filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, reference of which has been given in the impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2025. In the written statement, it has been set out that while the petitioner was posted as Instructor in Police Training School, Moradabad on 17.05.2022, the petitioner under the influence of alcohol, beat up his wife, Smt. Rani Devi and she had dialed 112 police helpline. As a result of such distress call, Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar and Head Constable Prem Raj reached the police lines and found the petitioner creating a ruckus in the police lines. He was so drunk that he was not stable on his legs and was repeatedly falling down. Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar and Head Constable Prem Raj took the petitioner to the police station first and thereafter to the District Hospital, Moradabad for medical examination, where the doctor found the petitioner to be drunk. Initially, a preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, where 4 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 the petitioner was found guilty of taking alcohol and acting in a manner detrimental to the image of the police in the eyes of general public. A regular disciplinary enquiry was held thereafter; statements of departmental witnesses were recorded; the petitioner was given opportunity of cross- examination and full hearing. An enquiry report was thereafter submitted finding the petitioner guilty and on the basis thereof, a show cause notice was issued to him, to which the petitioner replied. After consideration of his reply, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order and the appeal was rejected.

8. We have also gone through the medical examination report prepared by the Medical Officer on duty in District Hospital, Moradabad, wherein it has been stated that smell of alcohol was coming from the breath of the patient. Findings regarding other parameters have not been given, but with regard to the pupils of the petitioner a finding has been given of Medical Surveillance Monthly Report (MSMR). It was also stated by the doctor on duty that the petitioner had consumed alcohol but he was not in an intoxicated state.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Dashrath Singh (supra), where the case of the petitioner was that there was no conclusive medical examination done and no proper blood or urine tests was conducted to prove the allegation of alcohol consumption. The Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930 and this Court in Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India, (Writ-A No.67355 of 2007 decided on 15.05.2019) reported in 2019 SCC Online All 5491 and in Shiv Raj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors (Writ-A No.2230 of 2014) decided on

28.03.2018 reported in 2018 SCC Online All 7442 held that unless alcohol consumption is proved beyond doubt through proper urine and blood tests, it cannot be said that the delinquent employee was under the influence of alcohol. In the said case, it had also been submitted that the disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment, should have taken into account the surrounding circumstances, such as how long the employee had served and what his conduct had been in the past. Instead of awarding an order of dismissal, a lesser punishment could have been awarded by the disciplinary authority, which would have sufficed. The Hon'ble Single Bench allowed the writ petition on the ground that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer 5 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 that the delinquent employee was in a drunken state only on the basis of the employee smelling of alcohol was absolutely erroneous. If an allegation has been made regarding drunkenness, urine and blood tests ought to have been conducted. The disciplinary authority, while awarding punishment, should have considered the past conduct of the employee and the fact that he had not earlier been involved in indiscipline.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Munna Lal vs. Union of India and Ors, Civil Appeal No.6510 of 2009 reported in 2010 (15) SCC 399, where the appellant, a Sub Inspector working at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, was found to be in a drunken condition while on shift duty from 07:00 hrs. to 13:00 hrs. at the Indian Airlines Cargo gate. The immediate superior officer of the appellant, on reaching the office, felt the smell of alcohol and suspected that the appellant must have been in a drunken condition. He was taken to the airport dispensary for medical check-up. The doctor on duty examined him and stated that the appellant was conscious though incoherent in speech, his pupils were equal and normal, his pulse and B.P. were normal and there was an element of doubt about alcohol and suspicion of mild smell of alcohol and for confirmation he had referred the employee for further medical check-up to Safdarjang Hospital. The appellant had contended that on that day he was ill and was taking medicines and this must have caused the smell of alcohol. The enquiry officer relied upon the incomplete report of the doctor at the airport dispensary and held that the appellant's case was a confirmed case of intoxication.

11. The Supreme Court observed that the evidence was not satisfactory to prove that the employee was under the effect of alcohol. He was also not taken to Safdarjang Hospital as suggested by the doctor on duty at the airport dispensary. Since the charges could not be proved satisfactorily, the penalty of dismissal was set aside by the Supreme Court and the employee was reinstated in service and directed to get 50% of the back wages for the period he was out of service.

12. We have gone through the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, wherein the submissions made by the petitioner in the claim petition have been recorded, thereafter the submissions in the written statement and the 6 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 rejoinder affidavit have been recorded. Consideration of the petitioner's case has been made by the Tribunal from paragraph 6 onwards. The Tribunal recorded that Smt. Rani Devi, wife of the petitioner had called the police helpline No. 112 and police had arrived from police station Civil Lines and found the petitioner in a drunken state and had therefore taken him to the police station, from where he was sent to District Hospital, Moradabad for medical examination. The Tribunal considered the preliminary enquiry report, the regular disciplinary enquiry report and the facts of the case and thereafter gave its finding in paragraph 8 and 9, wherein it observed that at the time when the petitioner was found drunk, fighting and beating his wife in the police lines, he was on duty but in his residence. His wife, who was the complainant, later resiled from her statement, saying that there was only normal matrimonial disturbance between her and her husband. The Tribunal considered the medical report and also the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court that blood and urine tests ought to have been done in such a case. Such procedure was not followed. However, the Tribunal observed that the conduct of the petitioner was not proper conduct of a member of the disciplined force. In the punishment order, other misconduct of the petitioner had also been mentioned while imposing punishment by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal found the petitioner's misconduct to have been partly established and modified the punishment order. Instead of withholding one annual increment for three years with cumulative effect, only one annual increment was directed to be withheld for one year, which is a minor penalty.

13. Having gone through the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal (supra), we find that the said judgment turned on completely different facts. The delinquent employee in that case was dismissed from service without a confirmed medical opinion. In the case of Dashrath Singh (supra), this Court has found that the Hon'ble Single Judge referred to judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and to the fact that medical examination was done, but no conclusive medical opinion was given by the medical officer on duty. The Hon'ble Single Judge found the punishment of dismissal as excessive, considering the conduct of the petitioner, Dashrath Singh, taking into account that he had not been punished earlier and his conduct had always been satisfactory and he was regular in service. 7 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025

14. With regard to the petitioner, having gone through the medical report, we find that there is a definite opinion given by the Medical Officer on duty, District Hospital, Moradabad that the petitioner had consumed liquor, though he was not in an intoxicated state.

15. In Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with Criminal Appeal No.183 of 1970, where the appellant was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay for rash and negligent driving and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A I.P.C., in default R.I. for three months; three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 337 I.P.C., in default R.I. for six weeks; and three months R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in default R.I. for three weeks. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The High Court, on appeal, upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate. The High Court found that the appellant was drunk on that particular night and he was driving the car rashly and negligently at an excessively high speed.

16. The Supreme Court observed, on the arguments made by the counsel for the appellant, that although the appellant was examined by the doctor and his breath was smelling of alcohol and his gait was unsteady, the doctor had also admitted that a person placed in the circumstances in which the appellant was put as a result of the accident would be under a nervous strain and his gait might be unsteady. No urine test of the appellant was carried out and although blood of the appellant was sent for chemical analysis, no report of the analysis was produced by the prosecution. The Court, on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution, observed that it cannot be definitely held that the appellant was drunk at the time the accident occurred. In view of such observation, the criminal appeal was allowed.

17. In Shiv Raj Singh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court relied upon judgment rendered in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra) and also made observations with regard to procedural violation in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, including a defective show cause notice issued to the petitioner without a copy of the enquiry report.

18. It was in such background that the Court observed that the punishment of 8 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 dismissal was vitiated. In Krishna Kumar (supra), the petitioner was working as Head Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was found to be drunk and when he was posted at the polling booth during Parliamentary Elections, he resorted to unwanted fire by his carbine in an intoxicated condition, causing disruption in the election process. He was examined twice by medical officers in government dispensary. Both medical reports talked of normal behaviour, normal condition and conduct, and also very little smell of alcohol, which did not show that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of medical test. The allegation of 'drunkenness' levelled against the petitioner was not found to be proved only on the basis of observations made by the Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra), Shiv Raj Singh (supra) and Munna Lal (supra).

19. Even otherwise, the judgment in Krishna Kumar (supra) has been rendered by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court and we are sitting in Division Bench and examining perversity or legal infirmity, if any, in the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, U.P.

20. In the case of disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee, the degree of proof is preponderance of probability and not culpability beyond reasonable doubt. All that is required on the part of the disciplinary authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilty of the delinquent employee on the principal of preponderance of probability. This is precisely what was done by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority while dealing with the case of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee reported in (2025) 4 SCC 111 has observed in paragraph 37 and 38 as follows : "37. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to 9 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.

38. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in the Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, 1972 (4) SCC 618, wherein this Court held as follows: - “15. . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. . . .”

21. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that his wife had called the helpline No.112 and a Sub Inspector and Head Constable had been sent from police station Civil Lines, Moradabad to the residence of the petitioner. There were two statements of two eyewitnesses, i.e. the Sub Inspector and the Head Constable, regarding the petitioner being in an intoxicated state and behaving in an unruly manner. He was taken to the police station, Civil Lines and thereafter referred to the Chief Medical Officer, who sent him to the District Hospital, Moradabad for medical examination.

22. It is quite possible for a wife, when fearing dismissal of her husband, to take an about-turn and say that there was only a minor matrimonial altercation between her and her husband i.e. the delinquent employee.

23. The fact that the petitioner was creating a ruckus in the police lines campus has not been denied.

24. The Tribunal, being the first court of examination of facts, has 10 WRIA No. 13331 of 2025 considered the preliminary enquiry report, the statements of the departmental witnesses, the regular disciplinary enquiry report and the punishment order. There were two charges against the petitioner: one related to having been drunk and behaving in a unruly manner and the other related to conduct likely to lower the image of police in the eyes of the general public. The Tribunal has given an appropriate finding in this regard. Moreover, instead of the major penalty of stopping one increment for three years with cumulative effect, a minor penalty has been imposed by modifying the punishment and appellate order, stopping one increment for a period of one year.

25. We find no good ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the judgment and order impugned.

26. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 17, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench