Can a photograph in Dainik Bhaskar or any newspaper reveal whether or not someone is drunk?
In Rajesh Kumar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Nani Tagia delivered a 19-page long judgement wherein, he drew on two decision of the Supreme Court to conclude:"....it appears to be the law that when an employee, even if such an employee is temporary one, is sought to be terminated on a charge of bribery-which is punitive-it becomes necessary to hold an enquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law. Even in the case of minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say in the matter and if the charges are factual and are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be held. That is for the reason that adherence to the principle of natural justice cannot be dispensed with in such circumstances. 34. In view of the legal position and the finding recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 13.07.2019, terminating the petitioner’s contractual service from the post of Executive Assistant, Mid-Day Meal Scheme Office, Buxar, without holding an enquiry with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. 35. Accordingly, the impugned Office Order No. 40/2019-20, dated 13.07.2019 (Annexure-9), issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, terminating the petitioner’s contractual service from the post of Executive Assistant, Mid-Day Meal Scheme Officer, Buxar and the show cause notice dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure –6) issued to the petitioner by the District Programme Office, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar are hereby set aside and quashed. 36. The respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner in service forthwith with all the consequential benefits."
The writ application was filed by the petitioner challenging the Office Order issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, whereby the petitioner’s contractual service on the post of Executive Assistant, Mid-Day Meal Scheme Office, Buxar was terminated. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar was also challenged. The petitioner, vide a order dated October 30, 2012 was appointed on the post of Executive Assistant in the District Mid-Day Meal Scheme Office, Buxar on contract basis by the District Magistrate, Buxar. While the petitioner was working as such, a show cause notice dated July 1, 2019 was issued to him along with two other persons, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh and Sudehi Rai (both contractors), by the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar, wherein, it was stated that on June 30, 2019, Buxar edition of Dainik Bhaskar featured a photograph of the petitioner consuming alcohol in a vehicle along with two contractors and some unidentified persons. The following day, i.e. on July 1, 2019, the same newspaper published the petitioner’s name regarding the alleged alcohol consumption. In the show cause notice, it was also stated that the District Magistrate, Buxar, had taken cognizance of the matter, noting that the Bihar Government has strictly prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol and consuming alcohol in the State is an offence. As such, the petitioner was directed to submit a clarification within 24 hours of receiving the notice. Subsequently, an FIR being Muffasil P.S. Case No. 181 of 2019 was also lodged under Section 37(C) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 against the petitioner and others. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar, the petitioner submitted his reply on July 6, 2019, to the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day-Meal Scheme, Buxar. In his response, the petitioner denied the allegation of consumption of alcohol stating that the allegation levelled against him is false and the news item was published in the newspaper due to the prevailing rural politics.
The District Magistrate, Buxar, finding the reply submitted by the petitioner unsatisfactory, terminated the contractual service of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated July 13, 2019 with immediate effect by holding that as the consumption of alcohol is prohibited and is considered an offence in the State of Bihar, consumption of alcohol by the petitioner signifies his indiscipline.
The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application dated December 18, 2019 before the District Magistrate, Buxar with a prayer to allow him to rejoin the service contending that in the FIR being Muffasil P.S. Case No. 181 of 2019 registered against him under Section 37(C) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, the Investigating Officer has submitted a final report stating that there is no evidence against the petitioner suggesting commission of the alleged offence.
Did Dainik Bhaskar report about the Investigating Officer's final report when its report turned to be fake? Did the editor of the newspaper seek an explanation from its Buxar based reporter? High Court ought to have sought an explanation from the newspaper in question?
The application of the petitioner was forwarded by the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Buxar to the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar, seeking a report for further action to be taken in the matter. In response to the Deputy Collector’s letter dated March 14, 2020, the District Programme Officer, vide letter dated June 10, 2020, confirmed the final report submitted by the police in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 181 of 2019 and also apprised that no other person has been appointed to the post previously held by the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not receive any favorable response regarding his reinstatement despite the submission of the aforementioned application and the ensuing inter-departmental communications, he filed the writ petition challenging the impugned termination order dated July 13, 2019, issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned termination order was issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, solely on the basis of a photograph published in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper dated June 30, 2019, allegedly showing the petitioner consuming alcohol. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities summarily terminated the petitioner’s contractual services without conducting any departmental enquiry, despite the petitioner’s categorical denial of the allegations in his show-cause reply. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent authorities acted in a most unfair manner, violating the principles of natural justice and denying the petitioner an opportunity of a hearing to defend himself. Therefore, the impugned order of termination issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, cannot withstand the legal scrutiny of this Court and is liable to be set aside and quashed.
The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Court, which is as follows:-
(i) Sur Enamel And Stamping Works Ltd. Versus Workmen reported in 1963 SCC Online SC 97.
(ii) O.K. Bhardwaj Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 180.
(iii) Hari Ram Maurya Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 167.
(iv) Amit Kumar versus The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.5537 of 2020).
Dainik Bhaskar fails Breath Analyser Test reveals ignorance about Legal Metrology (General) Sixth Amendment Rules, 2025, I.O. of the case passes the test
The District Programme Officer, Mid Day Meal Scheme, Buxar issued a letter dated July 1, 2019 asking the petitioner along with two others to clarify within 24 hours of the receipt of the letter regarding the photograph featured in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper dated June 30, 2019 of the petitioner and others consuming alcohol. It also stated that the name of the petitioner was again published in the same newspaper on July 1, 2019 alleging consumption of alcohol by the petitioner to exploit the petitioner due to the prevailing rural politics.
Justice Tagia recorded: "The impugned order of termination has been passed thereafter on the basis of aforenoted two letters. It, thus, is evident from the impugned order of termination itself that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the petitioner’s service has been terminated only on the basis of aforenoted two letters dated 01.07.2019 and 08.07.2019, respectively. 27. Since the petitioner was a contractual employee, no specific service rules regulating the disciplinary proceeding against him appears to be in vogue. What, therefore, arises for determination by this Court is whether, in the absence of any specific service rules prescribing the enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner (a contractual employee), a formal enquiry should have been held before the impugned termination order was issued?"
Justice Tagia referred to two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court which was cited by counsel for the
petitioner in this regard and,
In paragraph 3 of the Supreme Court's decision in Hari Ram Maurya vs Union of India & Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 167, it has been held: “3. From the order of termination Annexure P-7, it appears that the same refers to the show-cause notice dated 20-8-2002 which is to be found at Annexure P-5. It is stated therein that the appellant demanded kickback with a view to help the complainant to get a favourable order in the pension matter. That being so, there was a clear charge of bribery levelled against the appellant. No doubt, the appellant was a temporary employee, but if he is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of the charge of bribery, it becomes necessary for the respondent Union of India to hold an inquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law. In this case, admittedly, no inquiry was conducted, and that is obvious even from Annexure P-7, the letter described as disengagement of casual labour. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court as also the order of termination Annexure P-7 dated 30-09-2002. This, however, will not prevent the respondents from taking action in accordance with law.”
In the case of Hari Ram Maurya, where the appellant, who was a temporary employee, was terminated on a charge of bribery without holding an inquiry, it has been held that if the employee is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of the charge of bribery, it becomes necessary to hold an inquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law, even if the employee was a “temporary employee”.
In paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the decision in the Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180, it has been held: “2. The High Court has recorded its opinion on two questions: (i) that the punishment imposing stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is not a major penalty but a minor penalty; (ii) in the case of minor penalties, “it is not necessary to give opportunity to the employee to give explanation and it is also not necessary to hear him before awarding the penalty”: a detailed departmental enquiry is also not contemplating in a case in which minor penalty is to be awarded. 3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that “withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect” is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.”
In O.K. Bhardwaj's case, the Court has held that even in the case of a minor penalty, an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him and if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for, which is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.
Although no Breath Analyser Test, Blood and Urine Test done on the petitioner to ascertain the veracity of the fake news published by Dainik Bhaskar and although the I.O. found no evidence of alleged offence, Justice Tagia added: "37. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by strictly following the due process of law, if so advised. 38. The writ petition is allowed in above terms and the same stands disposed of."
Dainik Bhaskar was one of the newspapers which had published a similar news about an advocate of the Patna High Court, the advocate has filed a case against it and others who reported without ascertaining the results of the Breath Analyser Test, Blood and Urine Test?
No comments:
Post a Comment