Consumption Of Alcohol A Very Serious Misconduct For A Person Whose Duty Is To Protect: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of HC Judge’s Guard
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Order of compulsory retirement.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Order of compulsory retirement imposed on a guard who was posted at the residence of a High Court Judge, while remarking that the consumption of alcohol is a very serious misconduct for a person whose duty is to protect.
The Court dismissed the Petition filed by the Guard (Petitioner) under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Order of compulsory retirement after he was found intoxicated during duty. The Court stated that the punishment was not “shockingly disproportionate” to the charges against the Petitioner, who had argued in his defense that he was suffering from a cold and cough and had consumed syrup which, due to excessive consumption, might contain alcohol.
A Single Bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia held that “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.”
Advocate Prashant Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, while Government Advocate Shailendra Singh Kushwaha represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was issued a departmental charge-sheet alleging that he was found sleeping while on duty at a High Court Judge’s bungalow in Gwalior and was under the influence of alcohol. A medical examination confirmed the presence of alcohol in his breath. It was also noted that he had been found sleeping on duty previously.
Based on the evidence during the Departmental enquiry, the Petitioner was found guilty, and a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. His subsequent Appeal and mercy Petition were dismissed.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that the consumption of alcohol and the presence of the smell of alcohol in breath were specifically mentioned in the MLC.
“It is well established principal of law that departmental enquiry is to be decided on the basis of propondence of probabilities and strict rules of evidence are not applicable and allegations are not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt,” the Bench explained.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh (2021) wherein it was held, “Judges do not rest with a mere recitation of the hands-off mantra when they exercise judicial review. To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to reappreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the Judge to be more appropriate.”
“However, presence of alcohol in the breath undoubtedly proves that petitioner has consumed liquor. This Court has already reproduced the evidence of Dr. A.K. Saxena. Not a single 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,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “Considering the totally of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting intereference. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. State of M.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:7924)
