Guard Posted At HC Judge's Home Consuming Liquor On Duty Is 'Serious Misconduct': MP High Court Upholds Penalty Of Compulsory Retirement

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “Petitioner was posted as a Guard and it was his duty to remain vigilant. If a Guard is allowed to consume liquor during his duty hours, then it cannot be said to be a misconduct having no seriousness. A person whose duty is to protect, then consumption of alcohol is a very serious misconduct. Considering the misconduct which was alleged and found proved against the petitioner, this Court is of considered opinion that punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge which was levelled against him.”

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner was posted as a Guard at a High Court Judge's residence at Gwalior. An information was received that petitioner was sleeping on duty. When he was woken up by the Judge, it was found that he was under influence of alcohol. Thus, he was sent for medical examination and in the said medical examination, presence of alcohol was found in the breath of the petitioner. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued on the charge that the petitioner was found sleeping under the state of intoxication.

The petitioner claimed that he was unwell and was suffering from cold and cough, therefore, he had consumed syrup which might be containing alcohol and on account of excessive consumption, presence of alcohol might have been found in the breadth of petitioner. It was further contended that even the doctor mentioned the presence of alcohol and not liquor.

After consideration of the evidence on record, it was found that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and thus, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. The appeal and mercy petition filed by the petitioner were also dismissed.

Challenging the order of compulsory retirement, the counsel for petitioner submitted that since the doctor had found that petitioner was not under intoxication, therefore, it cannot be that petitioner had consumed liquor while he was on duty.

Before considering the factual aspects of the case, the Court considered the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings. Referring to a catena of judgements, the Court opined that it cannot act as an Appellate Authority and cannot substitute its own finding unless and until the findings of facts recorded by authorities are found to be based on no evidence.

The Court noted that in the MLC it was specifically mentioned that smell of alcohol was present in breath of petitioner and petitioner had consumed alcohol, but wa not under intoxication.

“It cannot be said that if a person has consumed liquor, then he would not remain in consciousness unless and until entire effect is washed out from the body. On account of reduction of effect of alcohol in the blood, a person would start gaining consciousness. At the most it can be said that petitioner might have consumed liquor about 3 to 4 hours prior to the medical examination and therefore, he had started regaining his consciousness. However, presence of alcohol in the breath undoubtedly proves that petitioner has consumed liquor.”, the Court said.

The Court further noted that no question was put to the concerned witness by petitioner regard to the presence of smell of alcohol in his breath or finding with regard to consumption of alcohol. “Since finding with regard to consumption of alcohol and presence of smell of alcohol in breath have remained unchallenged, therefore it cannot be said that finding recorded by disciplinary authorities with regard to the consumption of alcohol is based on no evidence.”, the Court observed.

With regard to the question of punishment of compulsory retirement being disproportionate, the Court opined that since a guard's duty is to protect, therefore, consumption of alcohol on duty is a serious misconduct.

Thus, the Court did not find the order of compulsory retirement as disproportionate and dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Tripathi Versus State Of M.P And Others, Writ Petition No. 2907 Of 2012

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 78

Click Here To Read/Download Order