inebriated state while performing his duty and there are other charges as well which are already been stated above. Regarding the charge of the year 2003, since it is extremely old matter and though the charge itself is serious, but since nothing further has happened in that enquiry, giving an “adverse entry” to the petitioner without establishing all the charges any further, as to whether the credible or not, adverse entry given to the petitioner was not proper. Therefore, the adverse entry on his service record may not be proper and as far as that part of the order is concerned the same is set aside. The remaining charge has been proved against the petitioner, such as the fact that he had come on duty in an inebriated state which stands proved by statement of witnesses though admittedly there is no medical report to that affect. It has come in the enquiry report of the Naib Tehsildar, Koshya Kutil that the petitioner was under influence of liquor and that he somehow escaped when he was to be taken for medical examination. Moreover, the enquiry report further states that the fact that petitioner was under influence of liquor and was misbehaving with public has came from other respected member of public. Moreover, unlike in a criminal trial in a departmental proceeding the case has not to be proved “beyond reasonable doubt” but only with a high degree of probability.
