In a packed courtroom on Wednesday morning, the Patna High Court delivered a significant ruling that could reshape how police disciplinary actions are initiated in prohibition-related cases. Justice Sandeep Kumar, after weeks of reserving judgment, set aside the penalties imposed on Sub-Inspector Bhola Kumar Singh, who had been accused of dereliction of duty following a massive liquor seizure near Sursand Police Station in 2020. The judge’s tone was calm but firm as he unpacked how the inquiry against the officer appeared “prejudged from day one.”
Background
The case stems from the recovery of 4767.22 litres of illicit liquor from areas barely a few kilometres from the Sursand police station in Sitamarhi. Singh, then the S.H.O., was suspended soon after, and a departmental proceeding began almost immediately. Two punishment orders followed: first, a two-year stoppage of increments, and later-after a suo-motu review by the DGP-a far harsher penalty reverting him to basic pay for five years and barring him from S.H.O. postings for a decade.
Singh challenged both orders, arguing that the authorities acted mechanically, without evidence showing connivance or even negligence. His counsel repeatedly pointed out that he himself had lodged the FIR and had previously led dozens of successful raids under the excise ban.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kumar’s judgment walked through the disciplinary record with notable candour. Only two “formal witnesses” had been examined, both identifying signatures and nothing more. No officer involved in the actual raid testified about any lapse on Singh’s part.
“The bench observed, ‘It is not discernible how these documents establish the officer’s guilt, much less connivance or complicity.’”
The Court leaned heavily on two earlier rulings-Ajay Kumar and Mukesh Kumar Paswan-which criticised a controversial 2020 excise directive that presumed an S.H.O. guilty whenever illicit liquor was found in his jurisdiction. Justice Kumar remarked that this “deemed guilt mechanism” effectively forced disciplinary authorities to act with a closed mind.
He noted that the DGP’s show-cause notice and enhancement order were influenced by this very directive, even though such presumption “has no sanction of law and violates Article 21.” In simple terms, the Court said officials cannot assume guilt just because liquor was found nearby; they must prove negligence or collusion based on real evidence, not pressure from administrative circulars.
Another striking observation came when the judge commented on the DGP’s revisional powers: “A post-decisional hearing cannot cure a pre-decided penalty,” suggesting the authority had already made up its mind before considering Singh’s defence.
Decision
Concluding that the entire disciplinary process was “inherently defective,” Justice Kumar quashed both punishment orders-the 2021 increment stoppage and the 2022 enhanced penalty. The writ petition was allowed in full, effectively restoring the officer’s service status. The judgment ends without issuing further directions, noting only that the challenged orders “stand set aside.”
Case Title: Bhola Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Case No.: CWJC No. 7478 of 2023
Case Type: Civil Writ Jurisdiction (Service/Disciplinary Matter)
Decision Date: 10 December 2025