JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of dismissal from police services. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable with the respondent Police Department and he was assigned the duty of Quarter Guard for 05.11.2008 from 10 -12, 6 -8 and 2 – 4 p.m. At 2 p.m., he was handed over the charge by one Rajesh Kumar and during the course of discharging his duties, he was found in a drunken condition. It was also reported that out of the 5 bullets in his possession, he loaded one of them in the chamber of his rifle and kept four bullets in his pocket. The said incident was reported by one Girdhari Lal, Store Assistant and soon after being reported, the bullets were taken back from the possession of the petitioner and he was sent for medical examination at 3:45 p.m. in the day. According to the medical examination, the petitioner was drunk but was not intoxicated. On the basis of the medical report, four charges were framed against him and the charge-sheet was issued to him. In pursuance to the charge-sheet, a departmental inquiry was conducted against him and the Reserve Inspector, the Enquiry Officer, after recording the evidence of the witnesses submitted the inquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, Churu. After the report of the preliminary inquiry being submitted, the disciplinary authority took up the proceedings and found the charges against the petitioner to be proved. As a consequence, the petitioner was punished with the penalty of dismissal from services vide order dated 31.12.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police Bikaner, Range Bikaner and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2011. Aggrieved of the said orders, the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charges as levelled against him were not proved on record and hence, the punishment of dismissal from service was not valid. Aggrieved of the said orders, the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charges as levelled against him were not proved on record and hence, the punishment of dismissal from service was not valid. He submitted that a perusal of the medical report would clarify that the conclusion arrived was only on the basis of consumption of alcohol and no blood test or urine test as required under the Rules has been conducted and therefore, the conclusion as arrived at of the petitioner being drunk is of no consequence. In support of the said submission, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Charanjeet Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2008 (3) RLW 2634 (decided on 07.02.2008). It has further been argued by the learned counsel that so far as the allegation of misbehaving with the colleague is concerned, the same was neither a part of the first report made on 05.11.2008 at 3 p.m. nor was it part of the charges framed at the first stage. Learned counsel argued that the punishment of dismissal from services as imposed is totally disproportionate to the allegations even if held to be proved. In support of the said submission, learned counsel relied upon the ratio as laid down in L.Rs. of Narendrapal v. State & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3052/1995 (decided on 03.08.2007). It has also been argued that the statements of Bharat Singh wherein he specifically stated that the petitioner was not in a drunken state, have totally been discarded by the Enquiry Officer without any logic or reason. The non-compliance of the procedural requirement has also been made a ground of the arguments. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a case of gross misconduct on behalf of the petitioner firstly, being found in a drunken state on the place of duty and secondly, loading the gun without the prior permission of the competent Authority which is the basic requirement in terms of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. Learned counsel argued that it was proved on record that the petitioner was in a drunken state and that he had loaded one bullet in his gun which clearly revealed the intention of the petitioner and the same clearly amounts to misconduct. Learned counsel argued that it was proved on record that the petitioner was in a drunken state and that he had loaded one bullet in his gun which clearly revealed the intention of the petitioner and the same clearly amounts to misconduct. He further submitted that the Rules specifically provide that a Santri/Guard cannot load the gun without the directions of the Commanding Officer. Moresoever, the petitioner has not only loaded the gun but also cocked it which is the second step for the purpose of a pistol to be fired. The said cocking by the petitioner clarifies his intention to use the same. It has further been submitted that the statements of Bharat Singh who had turned hostile, cannot be read in evidence in terms of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and even otherwise disciplinary action against Bharat Singh has also been initiated by the department. Counsel further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner had been questionable in past too. Earlier too, his services had been retrenched on the ground of misconduct and on the date of incident he was working on the minimum pay basis. Therefore, while according punishment, the disciplinary Authority had to keep in consideration the earlier service record of an employee and in the present matter, keeping in view the earlier service record, the punishment as imposed is totally proportionate to the allegations and the conduct of the petitioner. 6. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of A. Murali Krishna v. Union of India & Ors.; Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5995/2022 (decided on 08.04.2022) and Union of India & Ors. v. Managobinda Samantaray; reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 (decided on 24.02.2022). Counsel further argued that it is the settled proposition of law that in the case of Disciplinary Forces, the employees are required to maintain the highest standard of discipline and therefore, the yardsticks of the said employees are also severe. The present one is a case of gross misconduct and the charges having been proved, the punishment as imposed is totally valid. In support, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.119/2015; Hari Ram v. State and Anr. (decided on 04.02.2015). 7. The present one is a case of gross misconduct and the charges having been proved, the punishment as imposed is totally valid. In support, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.119/2015; Hari Ram v. State and Anr. (decided on 04.02.2015). 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The first and foremost ground for termination of the petitioner is that he was found drunk on duty. The basis of the said finding of the Enquiry Officer is the medical examination report. In the medical examination report, the Medical Officer specifically observed as under:- “conscious, co-operative, irritative, coherent oriented well time place & person & name, alcoholic breath smell & mouth present conjunctive congested, talkative, concerned.” and concluded as under:- “Hence, Sh. Chhotu Ram consume alcohol but not intoxicated state.” 9. It is not in dispute that no blood test or urine test for the purposes of examination were conducted by the Medical Officer. 10. In Charanjeet Sharma’s case (supra), it was held as under:- “(9)…… It goes without saying that in order to establish the diagnosis of drunkenness, the doctor should carefully examine the person concerned and should collect the blood and urine samples for chemical analysis. Besides the odour of alcohol in the breath, there are many more signs which are required to be noticed while examining the person said to be in the drunken condition, such as, loss of clearness in intellect and control of himself, unsteady gait, dry and sticky lips, congested eyes, sluggish and dilated pupils, increased pulse rate, unsteady and thick voice etc. But, it appears that none such sign have been noticed by the doctor while examining the petitioner. If, the doctor was to give his finding only on the basis of the odour of alcohol in the breath of the petitioner then, there was no necessity even to refer the petitioner for examination to the doctor. The doctor’s report solely based on alleged odour of liquor emitting from the mouth the petitioner, cannot be made basis for holding him guilty, more so, when all other prosecution witnesses except the complainant Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, have categorically stated that the petitioner did not appear to be in drunken condition. The doctor’s report solely based on alleged odour of liquor emitting from the mouth the petitioner, cannot be made basis for holding him guilty, more so, when all other prosecution witnesses except the complainant Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, have categorically stated that the petitioner did not appear to be in drunken condition. The finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer concurred by the Disciplinary Authority, ignoring the statements of the witnesses attributing towards the innocence of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. It is true that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the strict rules of evidence do not apply, the charges are not required to be proved beyond doubt, and this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority but, in the instant case, a perusal of the material on record goes to show that the charge of the petitioner being found in intoxicated condition cannot be said to be proved against him even on the yardstick of the proof on the basis of preponderance of the probabilities.” 11. In view of the above ratio, it is clear that a charge of a person being intoxicated cannot be said to be proved, if no blood or urine test has been conducted for the purpose. It has also been held that merely the alleged odour of liquor emitting from the mouth, cannot be made basis for holding a person guilty. In the present case, it was the specific observation of the Medical Officer that the petitioner was not in an intoxicated state. The Officer found the petitioner to be conscious/coherent and even place and time oriented. In view of the observations of the Medical Officer and in view of the ratio as laid down in Charanjeet Sharma’s case, it can be safely concluded that the finding of guilt as recorded against the petitioner solely on the basis of the odour emitting from his mouth cannot be held to be tenable. Further Bharat Singh (P.W.-7), who had appeared before the Enquiry Officer and who was the in-charge of the Quarter Guard on the date of incident specifically stated that right from the time of taking charge till the period of completion of his duty, the petitioner was not drunk. He has further stated that there was no odour of liquor in the room. He has further stated that there was no odour of liquor in the room. Mohan Singh (P.W.-6) has also stated that the petitioner was drunk but was not intoxicated. . Statement of P.W.-7 NksVwjke us iSgjk fy;k] rc ls lekfIr rd 'kjkc ugh ih j[kh FkhA Statement of P.W.-6 NksVwjke us 'kjkc ih j[kh Fkh] fdUrq engks'k ugh FkkA 12. In view of the above statements and the specific fact that the petitioner did not undergo any blood or urine test, the finding of guilt cannot be found to be proved and the dismissal of the petitioner on the said ground cannot be held to be valid. 13. So far as the allegation of the petitioner having loaded bullet in the chamber of his rifle and having cocked the same is concerned, none of the witnesses have supported the said averments. It has been the specific admission by most of the witnesses that no violent action or attempt was made by the petitioner. It is only the statements of Girdhari Lal, who is reported to have informed the authorities regarding loading of the bullet in the rifle, which has been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. Girdhari Lal, in his cross-examination, has specifically pleaded his ignorance regarding the fact whether the petitioner was intoxicated or not. He specifically admitted that the petitioner neither fired nor made any such attempt. The interesting aspect of the matter is that Girdhari Lal, who was the person who had informed of the incident, specifically admitted that the petitioner neither attempted to fire nor fired whereas Vijaypal Singh (P.W.-5) had stated that petitioner did attempt to fire and was even threatening the L.O. to kill him. Mohan Singh (P.W.-6) specifically admitted that the petitioner did not load the rifle in front of him and pleaded ignorance regarding the fact of the petitioner having threatened anyone. 14. A bare perusal of the contradiction in the statements as relied upon by the Enquiry Officer makes it clear that the facts have been improved during the inquiry proceedings and the petitioner has been sought to be implicated in the same. An analysis of the evidence as laid before the Enquiry Officer and the findings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer makes it clear that the same are contrary to the statements recorded and therefore, cannot be held to be tenable. An analysis of the evidence as laid before the Enquiry Officer and the findings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer makes it clear that the same are contrary to the statements recorded and therefore, cannot be held to be tenable. The punishment imposed on the petitioner qua the said allegation also therefore, deserves to be set aside. 15. The judgments as relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents would be not of much avail as both of them pertain to cases where there is a specific finding of intoxication against the incumbent therein. In both the cases of A. Murali Krishna (supra) as well as Hari Ram (supra), there is a specific finding of intoxication against the employee whereas in the present matter the specific averment of the Medical Officer himself is that the petitioner was not intoxicated. So far as the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, the same pertains to the principle that the punishment of dismissal cannot be disproportionate to the quantum of offence and would also not be needed to be applied in the present matter as this Court has reached to a specific finding that the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner is not tenable and therefore, the question as to the proportionality of the punishment would not even arise. 16. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner, Range Bikaner and the order dated 13.12.2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Churu are hereby quashed and set aside. 17. As the petitioner had expired during the pendency of the present writ petition and his legal representatives have already been taken on record, the legal representatives of the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising out of the present judgment.