ORDER J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This petition was filed before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order dated 22-3-1997 (Annexure-A/8), passed by the disciplinary authority, by which the penalty of his removal has been passed. Petitioner has also challenged the order passed in appeal (Annexure-A/10) dated 2-7-1997, confirming the said order, passed by the disciplinary authority. On abolition of the Tribunal this case is received for its final adjudication to this Court. 2. It is the case of petitioner that on 18-6-1996 he was on Court duty and after coming back, a request seeking leave was made by him with Reserved Inspector, Mandsaur (hereinafter it be referred as "R1" in short). On such request he was annoyed with petitioner and by making allegation of drunkenness and misbehaviour; petitioner was sent for medical examination to the hospital. After obtaining the report from the doctor, a charge-sheet Annexure-A/1 dated 1-8-1996 was issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur, wherein the following charges were levelled against him : 3. Petitioner has submitted his reply denying all the allegation as alleged against him. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, and by the enquiry report Annexure-P/7 the charges as levelled against him were found proved. After issuing a show-cause notice Annexure-A/6, the order dated 22-3-1997 of penalty of removal from service has been passed as per Annexure-A/8 by the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred against such order Annexure-A/9 has also been rejected on 2-7-1997 as per Annexure-A/10 and the order of disciplinary authority has been confirmed. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of his removal passed by the disciplinary authority, and appellate authority and prayed for quashment of the same, and reinstatement with consequential benefits. 4. Shri M.I. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the basic charge levelled against the petitioner is of drunkenness while he was in roll-call at 8 PM on 10-6-1996; In the enquiry the charge of drunkenness was found proved relying on the medical report submitted by the doctor, with following details : 5. The perusal of the report indicates that the patient was fully conscious, Gait normal, Speech normal and smell of alcohol coming from mouth. The perusal of the report indicates that the patient was fully conscious, Gait normal, Speech normal and smell of alcohol coming from mouth. Although, the word 'not' has been written in between Alcohol and coming but it is crossed without any counter signature of the doctor concerned which may be clearly seen from the original report produced before this Court along with the record. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, all the reports which may form the basis of diagnosis of drunkenness should be performed by the doctor as per "Model Scheme of medical examination". However, the report which is relied upon by the enquiry officer, and formed the basis to prove the charge of drunkenness is not sufficient, because it is not as per the said scheme. However, the punishment offered merely relying on such report of the doctor is unsustainable and the penalty of removal as directed against him is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra Smt. Rashmi Pandit, Panel lawyer appearing for the respondents, submits that Dr. A.V. Gwaliorkar has submitted his report indicating consumption of the alcohol by the petitioner, and such allegation has been found proved by the Inquiry officer. It is further submitted that the prosecution witness No. 1 Ashok has stated that petitioner was shouting in roll call and having unexpected talks, however, the R.I., who is the in-charge of the roll call has come over there and found the smell of alcohol from the mouth of the petitioner, hence, send him for medical examination. On the other hand the statement of Ashok has been confirmed by the R.I. concerned and, as such, it is fully proved that the petitioner has shouted in the roll call and having unexpected talks under alcoholic arrest. Therefore, the charge No. 1 has been found proved. 7. It is further submitted by Smt. Pandit that petitioner has also been punished earlier for the similar type of charges, but he has not made any improvement in his conduct. The said charge has also been found proved on the basis of the statement of M.K. Sawaliya, however, the order of penalty has rightly been passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority. The said charge has also been found proved on the basis of the statement of M.K. Sawaliya, however, the order of penalty has rightly been passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority. In that view of the matter it is urged that the interference by the Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 is beyond the scope of judicial review of this Court and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original record of the departmental enquiry, thereby it is apparent that the finding of alcoholic arrest of petitioner on a charge levelled by the prosecution is based upon a medical report of Dr. A.V. Gwaliorkar. However, the proof of the allegation as alleged against him is based upon a documentary evidence i.e., medical report. The arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner towards tenability and viability of the medical report submitted by the doctor requires consideration in view of the principles of medical jurisprudence. As per the Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence the doctor is required to see the reflexes and co-ordinate action of the accused/patient concerned, which might be made of use in diagnosis. The reflexes and co-ordinate actions can be made as per general behaviour, memory, mental alertness, writing, pulse, temperature, skin, mouth, eyes, ears, gait, muscular co-ordination, knee and ankle reflexes, pulmonary, cardiovascular and elementary systems, laboratory investigations. Thereafter, the diagnosis must be made by such medical examiner by giving a certificate of its opinion indicating the fact that the patient/accused is under the influence of alcohol or drug, to the extent of his capability of having proper control and behaviour. Under the Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence a model scheme of medical examination for drunkened person has been published, which is required to quote hereinbelow : A MODEL SCHEME OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION The Committee offers an outline of a fairly comprehensive scheme of a medical examination of a person suspected of suffering from alcoholic intoxication. The doctor will adapt the details to suit any particular case, but the individual's condition under each main heading should be considered. The doctor will adapt the details to suit any particular case, but the individual's condition under each main heading should be considered. The medical examiner's record should include a note of the date and of the time at the beginning and at the end of the examination. It should also note the state of the lighting of the room in which the examination takes place. Exclusion of Injuries and Pathological States. The examiner should satisfy himself that the detail person is not suffering from serious injury or other acute condition. If any such injury or condition is found appropriate treatment should be applied. History. A short history should be taken. Questions such as the following should be asked: Do you feel well? When did you last take food and drink? (An estimate of the type and quantity should be recorded) Are you subject to fits? Do you suffer from any other disease or disability; if so, what? Are you at present under medical treatment? Do you suffer from diabetes; if so, do you take insulin? What was the time and quantity of your last dose? Have you any medicines or drugs in your possession? General Behaviour. Notes should be made on : (a) General deportment and behaviour. (b) State of dress. Presence of slobber on mouth or clothing; presence, character and colour of any vomit; soiling of clothes by incontinence. (c) Speech.. Note the type-----e.g. Is it thick, slurred, over-precise? It is not desirable to ask tongue-twisters, difficult words, or counting backwards. 1. Self-control. Note whether the examinee has the power of temporarily pulling himself together in response to the demands made on him by the examiner. Memory and Mental Alertness, (a) A few question should be asked to test the state of the memory, for example : What is your name, address, and occupation? What is the day of the week, the time of the day? (The actual time should be noted.) What recent events do you remember? What were you doing just before you were brought here? (b) The examinee should be asked to sign his name. The signature can be compared with that on his driving licence. (c) A few very simple sums of addition or subtraction may be asked, (see comment at the end of next item.) Writing. The examinee should be asked to copy a few lines from a newspaper or book. (b) The examinee should be asked to sign his name. The signature can be compared with that on his driving licence. (c) A few very simple sums of addition or subtraction may be asked, (see comment at the end of next item.) Writing. The examinee should be asked to copy a few lines from a newspaper or book. A note should be made of: The time taken. Repetition or omission of words, letters, or lines. SCHEME OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION Ability to keep letters in a line. Ability to read his own writing. In giving tests which require the use of knowledge or intelligence, the examinee's probable standard of education should be taken into consideration. In tests or writing, both the original and the copy should be retained. The examinee should be allowed to use his own pen, or if he has not one he should be given a pencil. A strange or unsuitable nib may be unfair to the examinee. SAMPLE OF WRITING IN DRUNKENNESS Pulse. The resting pulse should be taken at the beginning and at the end of examination, any difference being recorded. The examiner should also note any special characteristics. In cases of uncomplicated alcoholic intoxication the pulse is rapid and usually full and bounding. Temperature. The temperature should be taken in the axilla. Skin. The examiner should note whether the skin is dry, moist, flushed or pale. Mouth, (a) The examiner should record the general state of the mouth and tongue, noting whether the tongue is dry, moist, furred, or bitten. (b) He should note such points as presence of artificial teeth, the absence of many teeth, and any deformity of the mouth -- e.g. Cleft palate. (c) The smell of the breath should be recorded. POISONING BY ALCOHOLS The examiner should confine himself to recording the presence or absence of the smell of fresh or stale drink. It is unwise to attempt to identify the type taken. He should not overlook the possibility of the smell of alcohol being masked by the smell of garlic, peppermint or other substance, or by the use of deodorants. Eyes. If the examinee wears glasses, he should be allowed to keep them on during the examination. (a) General appearance. The examiner should note : (i) Whether the lids are swollen or red, and whether the conjunctive are suffused. Eyes. If the examinee wears glasses, he should be allowed to keep them on during the examination. (a) General appearance. The examiner should note : (i) Whether the lids are swollen or red, and whether the conjunctive are suffused. (ii) Any abnormalities, such as the wearing of an artificial eye or contact lenses. (iii) The colour of the eyes. Though not diagnostically relevant, it is wise to note this. (b) Visual acuity. Any gross defect of visual acuity should be noted. (c) Intrinsic muscles, (i) The appearance of the pupils should be recorded. Are they equal or unequal, dilated or contracted, or abnormal in any way? (ii) The reaction to light should be noted. The examiner should test the reaction first to ordinary illumination and then to strong torch light. He should note whether the reaction is brisk, slow, or absent. In the early stages of alcoholic intoxication, the pupils are dilated. As the condition advances, and also in a state of coma, they often become pinpoint. They may become unequal, equalizing again in response to light. The pupils may contract in strong light, and dilate again slowly, even if the light continues to be directed into the eyes. (d) Extrinsic muscles, (i) Convergence : The examiner should test the degree of ability to follow a finger in all normal directions and to converge the eyes normally on a near object. (ii) Strabismus : The examiner should note whether strabismus is present. He should be prepared to compare in cross-examination the degree of strabismus found at the time of the examination with the examinee's appearance at the hearing of the case. (iii) Nystagmus : The presence of nystagmus should be looked for. The doctor should examine for final lateral nystagmus and consider his findings in conjunction with the examinee's pupillary reactions. The presence of fine lateral nustagmus may be regarded as strongly indicative of alcoholic intoxication, but its absence is not proof of the absence of alcoholic intoxication. Ears. The doctor should examine for : (a) gross impairment of hearing; (b) the presence of discharge or of wax; (c) abnormality of the drums. Gaits. The examinee should be asked to walk across the room and the examiner should note : (a) Manner of walking : is it straight, irregular, over-precise, staggering, reeling, or with feet wide apart? Ears. The doctor should examine for : (a) gross impairment of hearing; (b) the presence of discharge or of wax; (c) abnormality of the drums. Gaits. The examinee should be asked to walk across the room and the examiner should note : (a) Manner of walking : is it straight, irregular, over-precise, staggering, reeling, or with feet wide apart? (b) Reaction time to a direction to turn : does the examinee turn at once or continue for one or two paces before obeying? (c) Manner of turning : does the examinee keep his balance, lurch forward, or reel to one side? Does he correct any mistake in a normal or an exaggerated way? It is undesirable to ask the examinee to walk along a straight line drawn on the floor or along a carpet edge. Stance : The doctor should test the examinee's ability to stand normally : (a) with eyes open. (b) with eyes closed. Muscular co-ordination. The following are some of the movements which the examinee might be asked to perform as a test of his power of muscular co-ordination: (a) Placing finger to nose. (b) Placing finger to finger. (c) Picking up medium-sized objects from the floor. (d) Lighting a cigarette with a match. (e) Unbuttoning and re-buttoning waistcoat or coat. The examiner will select whichever tests seem to him most suitable in the particular case. He should notice which hand is used in tests (c), (d) and (e). In requesting muscular movements of this kind, the examiner should not ask the examinee to perform any action which he could not perform easily himself. He should also appreciate the difficulty involved for some people in apparently simple movements, such as picking up small objects from the floor. Reflexes. Knee and ankle reflexes should be tested. Pulmonary, cardiovascular, and Alimentary systems. The heart, lungs, and abdomen should be examined and the blood pressure taken to establish the presence or absence of disease. Laboratory Investigations. (See P. 403.) The Diagnosis. The examiner should be careful to base his opinion on a review of the result of the whole of his examination and not to draw conclusions from isolated features. THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE Certificate and Reports. A doctor called by the police will be asked, after the examination, for a written statement of his findings. (See P. 403.) The Diagnosis. The examiner should be careful to base his opinion on a review of the result of the whole of his examination and not to draw conclusions from isolated features. THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE Certificate and Reports. A doctor called by the police will be asked, after the examination, for a written statement of his findings. In complying with this request he should remember that he has received the detained person's consent to examine him and nothing more. He should confine himself to giving his opinion on the condition of the examinee at the time of the examination, and should not express, either orally or in writing, any opinion relating to the patient's condition prior to the examination. If he is asked to do so he should refuse. The committee recommends that whenever a 'certificate' is required, it should be on the following lines, using only those sentences which are applicable to the particular case : As a result of my examination of................................on................................at................................ I am of opinion that he is under the influence of alcohol or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle. I am of opinion that he is not under the influence of alcohol or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle. I am of opinion that he is suffering from.......................... I am of opinion that he is fit to be detained. I am of opinion that he is not fit to be detained. A full report may be sought later by the prosecution. 9. In view of the aforesaid scheme, the report submitted by the doctor, which had formed the basis of removal of petitioner from service, is required to be examined in the anvil of the said principles of law. On examination of the report it is apparent that the doctor concerned has merely made the general observations indicating the fact that the patient is - fully conscious, gait - normal, pupil - normal, speech normal and, thereafter, it is written by him that smell of alcohol not coming from mouth, but the word 'not' has been crossed by him without any counter signature. The record indicate that the petitioner has put up various relevant questions in the cross- examination of AW 9 Dr. The record indicate that the petitioner has put up various relevant questions in the cross- examination of AW 9 Dr. A.V. Gwaliorkar, but on going through the answer given by him, in his cross-examination, it does not reveal to the Court that his report is as per the aforesaid scheme and sufficient to prove the allegation of the drunkenness. In the appeal memo Annexure-A/9 in para-8 specific ground has been taken by him that the R.I. has obtained report of smell of alcoholic substance against him from the doctor, although, the report does not prove his drunkenness by giving the material description required for such proof. The appellate authority has not duly considered the said ground and answered it in negative, while passing the order Annexure-A/10. It is merely stated in the appellate order that such argument is not tenable in absence of any proof. Although the argument was based upon the basic principles of medical jurisprudence. 10. After going through the material available on record and the medical report of the doctor Annexure-R/1 it is apparent that the allegation has been found proved in the enquiry, on the basis of the medical report, although, as per the model scheme of medical examination various factors are missing in the said report. The doctor concerned has not written the history, general behaviour, memory and mental alertness, writing, pulse, temperature, skin, mouth, ears, muscular co-ordination, knee and ankle reflexes, pulmonary, cardiovascular and elementary systems, laboratory investigations i.e., urine or blood test has not been performed and without all these examinations a report has been submitted forming a diagnosis against the petitioner. Although, in the report the fact remains that while writing the smell of alcohol is coming the word 'not' has been crossed without any counter-signature. It makes the report of a doctor doubtful and the argument of the petitioner, as advanced in the appeal, having much force in the light of the said legal position. On critically examining the report of the doctor it further reveals that once the patient was fully conscious, gait was normal, pupil was normal, speech was normal then writing of smell of alcohol coming from mouth, by crossing the word 'not' makes it wholly untrustworthy particularly, when no pathological examination of urine and blood has been performed by such doctor. On critically examining the report of the doctor it further reveals that once the patient was fully conscious, gait was normal, pupil was normal, speech was normal then writing of smell of alcohol coming from mouth, by crossing the word 'not' makes it wholly untrustworthy particularly, when no pathological examination of urine and blood has been performed by such doctor. The report does not indicate that the doctor has obtained signatures of the patient concerned for its concurrence particularly when he was in a normal situation, however, without all the aforesaid examination the said report cannot be accepted, particularly relying on such report a bread earner of the family, is being removed from the job, affecting his livinghood. In that view of the matter it is apparent that the respondents were not able to prove the charge of drunkenness against petitioner. The finding to prove such charge merely on the basis of a certificate of a doctor, which is contrary to the above discussed legal position, cannot be accepted, particularly, when such a document may led the consequence of removal of an employee which attracts Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Now, the argument, as advanced by Smt. Pandit, that the petitioner has shouted in roll call and having unexpected talks, which is supported by the statement of witness AW3 Ashok and S.K. Upadhyay, R.I. requires analytical discussion. The statements of the said witnesses are contradictory, because Ashok in his statements said that while petitioner was shouting in a drunken position, R.I. Upadhyay has come over there and was sent him for medical examination. On the other hand, R.I., Upadhyay states in his deposition - Ashok has submitted a report to him that petitioner is in a drunken position and shouting with unexpected talks. However, in view of the discussions as made hereinabove, it is apparent that R.I. Upadhyay has acted upon on the report of Head Constable AW-3 Ashok, but the Constable Ashok states that when petitioner was shouting in a drunken position, R.I. Upadhyay came over on the spot and sent him for medical examination. In the statement of R.I. Upadhyay, he has acted upon the report of Ashok. On the other hand Ashok has said that it is R.I. Upadhyay, who has come on the spot and acted upon against the petitioner. In the statement of R.I. Upadhyay, he has acted upon the report of Ashok. On the other hand Ashok has said that it is R.I. Upadhyay, who has come on the spot and acted upon against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is to be presumed that this is a case of no evidence to prove the allegation of shouting and having unexpected talks, by the petitioner during role call, which is part of charge No. 1. Thus neither the allegation of drunkenness of petitioner nor the allegation of shouting with unexpected talks during roll call are proved on the basis of the statement recorded during inquiry. Therefore, it is to be held that charge No. 1 as levelled against the petitioner has not been proved by the respondents by cogent oral and documentary evidence. 12. So far as the charge No. 2 is concerned, which relates to his past conduct, which is a matter of record and the charge No. 2 is subsidiary to the allegation as alleged in charge No. 1. Once the allegation as alleged in charge No. 1 has not been found proved, then there is no occasion available to the respondents to reassess the past conduct or record of the petitioner. Therefore, the finding recorded to prove charge No. 2 against the petitioner is also not tenable. 13. In view of the discussions as made hereinabove, and on consideration of the facts of the present case that the petitioner was removed from the service in 1997 for the charge of drunkenness indicating his past conduct for similar allegation, but on account of non-availability off the viable and un-impeachable report of a doctor the charge No. 1 as levelled against him has not been found proved, but looking to his past conduct as reflected from charge No. 2, though it is not found proved, but taking into consideration the past record available before me I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement but without any backwages. 14. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 22-3-1997 Annexure-P/8 passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order dated 2-7-1997 Annexure-P/10, passed by the appellate authority, are quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate him but without backwages within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. 14. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 22-3-1997 Annexure-P/8 passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order dated 2-7-1997 Annexure-P/10, passed by the appellate authority, are quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate him but without backwages within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed