JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against punishment order dated 06.09.2004 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bijnor imposing punishment of reduction in pay scale from Rs.4305/- to Rs.3050/- for a period of two years and Appellate Order dated 31.03.2005 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Moradabad rejecting petitioners appeal. 3. It is contended that petitioner was not given time to file reply and enquiry has been conducted ex parte and charge of consumption of liquor was not found proved as medical examination was not properly conducted, hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Record shows that petitioners blood test to find out whether he has consumed liquor or not was not conducted and only on the basis of smell from his mouth, report was been given by Medical Officer with respect to consumption of liquor and that too by a Homeopathic Doctor. 5. In my view, this report cannot be read as if it was certifying the fact that petitioner had consumed liquor. The report is clearly conjectural inasmuch more reliable test like blood and urine were not conducted at all. 6. Though in the context of a criminal matter, in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, 1971 (3) SCC 930 , a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court, in a short judgment, considered the question whether charge of rash and negligent driving after taking liquor was proved or not. The medical report was based on the breathe of accused whereupon doctor said that he was smelling of alcohol, his gait was unsteady, speech was incoherent and pupils were dilated. Court also noticed that doctor admitted that the person could smell of alcohol without being under the influence of drunk. No urine test was carried out and though blood was sent for chemical analysis but no report was produced. In the circumstances, Court said that it cannot be said that there was an evidence to prove the fact that the accused was drunk at the time of accident. 7. No urine test was carried out and though blood was sent for chemical analysis but no report was produced. In the circumstances, Court said that it cannot be said that there was an evidence to prove the fact that the accused was drunk at the time of accident. 7. A Division Bench of this Court has followed the aforesaid decision in Shiv Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (5) ADJ 679 and held that without urine and blood test, no conclusive report can be given for consumption of alcohol. 8. In a departmental enquiry, charge is not supposed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt like a criminal case but still a person cannot be punished on surmises and conjectures as held by a Constitution Bench in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 observing as under: '... mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as must to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules.' 9. Therefore, in the departmental proceedings, there must be some evidence which may prove reasonably that incumbent is guilty of misconduct and a person of ordinary prudence must come to this conclusion on the basis of material on record. 10. In Munna Lal v. Union of India and others (2010) 15 SCC 399 which is a 3-Judge Bench judgment of Supreme Court, an allegation was made against Munna Lal, a Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi that he was found in drunken condition while on shift duty from 07.00 hrs. to 13.00 hrs. at the Indian Airlines Cargo gate. The superior officer felt smell of alcohol and suspected that he was in drunken condition. Doctor found other conditions, namely, speech, pupil etc. normal, pulse and B.P. Normal, but said that there was an element of doubt about alcohol on account of mild smell of alcohol. Court held that evidence was not satisfactory to prove charge of drunkenness and in absence of any positive evidence, it cannot be said that charge is proved satisfactorily. Doctor found other conditions, namely, speech, pupil etc. normal, pulse and B.P. Normal, but said that there was an element of doubt about alcohol on account of mild smell of alcohol. Court held that evidence was not satisfactory to prove charge of drunkenness and in absence of any positive evidence, it cannot be said that charge is proved satisfactorily. Court also said: 'In the absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary authority should not have imposed such penalty. Therefore, the punishment imposed was illegal .... ' 11. In the present case, petitioner has been held guilty on suspicion and conjectures which is not permissible in view of law laid down by Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. H.C. Goel (supra). In these circumstances, I find it difficult to uphold the order impugned in this writ petition. 12. Rule 4-A of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Conduct Rules, 1956') relates to conduct of government servant consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs reads as under: '4-A. Consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs A Government servant shall - (a) strictly abide by any law relating to intoxicating drinks or drugs in force in any area in which he may happen to be for the time being; (b) not be under influence of any intoxicating drink or drug during the course of his duty and shall also take due care that the performance of his duties at any time is not affected in any way by the influence of such drink or drug; (c) refrain from consuming any intoxicating drink or drug in a public place; (d) not appear in a public place in a state of intoxication; (e) not use any intoxicating drink or drug to excess. Explanation: For the purposes of this rule, public place means any place or premises (including a conveyance) to which the public have, or are permitted to have, access, whether on payment or otherwise. Explanation II. - Any Club - (a) which admits persons other than Government servants as members; or (b) the members of which are allowed to invite non-members as guests thereto even though the membership is confined to Government servants. shall also, for purposes of Explanation I, be deemed to be a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access.' 13. shall also, for purposes of Explanation I, be deemed to be a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access.' 13. Clause (b) is not applicable in the present case since petitioner was not on duty. It is also not the case that he was consuming intoxicating drink or drug in public place, therefore, clause (c) is also not applicable. Now the only provision which, at the best, can be stressed in this case, are, clauses (b), (c) and (d). Clause (d) shows that there is no bar that incumbent may not have some intoxicating drink or drug but it says that he shall not take the same in excess. Clause (c) provides that he should not appear in a public place in a state of intoxication and clause (b) provides that he should not be under influence of any intoxicating drink or drug during the time of his duties and his duty not affected in any way by the influence of such drink or drug. The aforesaid Rule nowhere, therefore, talks of a complete bar that a member of Force shall not come to attend his duties if he has taken some liquor or intoxicating drink or drug before coming to duty. Even the use of drink and drug is permitted but prohibition is against excess, or to the extent efficient discharge of duty is affected otherwise. 14. In a case before Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Subramanyam v. Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupathi 2000 (2) APLJ (HC) 266, a learned Single Judge (Honble Vaman Rao, J.) had and occasion to consider, in reference to Section 36(1)(d) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, as to what constitute drunkenness. Court said that what is prohibited is drunkenness and not mere drinking. There is a vast difference between drinking and drunkenness. Referring to Oxford Dictionary, Court observed that drunkenness is the noun derived from the word drunk and drunk is given meaning as render incapable by alcohol, a habitually drunk person. 15. Court said that what is prohibited is drunkenness and not mere drinking. There is a vast difference between drinking and drunkenness. Referring to Oxford Dictionary, Court observed that drunkenness is the noun derived from the word drunk and drunk is given meaning as render incapable by alcohol, a habitually drunk person. 15. Similarly, in Blacks Law Dictionary, the term 'drunkenness' is defined as the condition of a person whose mind is affected by the consumption of intoxicating drinks; the state of one who is drunk; the effect produced upon the mind or body by drinking intoxicating liquors to such an extent that the normal condition of the subject is changed and his capacity for rational action and conduct is substantially lessened'. 16. Thus, a person found merely drinking liquor cannot be said to be in a state of drunkenness unless drinking resulted in some perceivable change in his conduct, which may be considered other than normal. 17. Under Rule 4-A of Conduct Rules, 1956, I do not find that except of prohibiting taking of liquor in public, there is any bar that a Government Servant may not take drink in private and thereafter attend his duty. The only restriction and prohibition is that such drink must not affect his official duties and should not be in excess. 18. In the present case, medical report only talks of smell from his mouth but clearly show that he was not under influence of liquor at the time of medical test. Therefore, to my mind even allegation of drunknness levelled against petitioner is not consistent to what has been contemplated in Rule 4-A of Conduct Rules, 1956 and it appears that authorities have understood the same in a different manner which is not provided in Rules and is not a part of Conduct Rules, 1964. Thus also punishment imposed upon petitioner for something which is not consistent with Conduct Rules is clearly unwarranted and illegal. 19. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the orders impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained. 20. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 06.09.2004 and 31.03.2005 are hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.