MP High Court upheld compulsory retirement of a guard found sleeping on duty with alcohol smell. Court ruled it as serious misconduct due to his duty of vigilance.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently upheld the decision to compulsorily retire a guard who was found sleeping on duty at the official residence of a High Court judge in Gwalior back in 2007. The case is titled Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. State of MP and Others. The court held that the punishment was not too harsh given the seriousness of the misconduct.
In this case, a security guard had been caught sleeping while on duty at the judge’s bungalow. During the inquiry, a medical test was conducted on the guard, and although the report did not declare him intoxicated, the doctor mentioned that there was a smell of alcohol in his breath.
The guard, however, claimed that he had not consumed alcohol but had taken cough syrup due to illness. He argued that there was no clear evidence to prove that he had actually consumed alcohol.
However, Justice GS Ahluwalia of the Madhya Pradesh High Court disagreed with the guard’s explanation.
The judge said that,
the smell of alcohol in the guard’s breath was enough to confirm that he had consumed liquor.
As per the exact words of the Court:
“smell of alcohol in the guard’s breath in itself was sufficient to prove that the guard had consumed liquor.”
The Court explained further about the effects of alcohol and how it reduces over time in the human body.
The judge said that,
a person does not remain unconscious the entire time until the alcohol is completely gone from the system. Instead, as time passes, the person slowly starts becoming more conscious as the effect of alcohol reduces.
According to the Court:
“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.”
ALSO READ: Drunk-Driving| Woman HR Consultant’s Bail Denied in Fatal Mercedes Crash
Additionally, the Court noted that during the disciplinary proceedings, no questions were asked to the doctor about the smell of alcohol in the guard’s breath. Because of this, the finding of alcohol consumption and the presence of the smell remained unchallenged.
As the judge said:
“not a single question had been put to the doctor regarding presence of alcohol smell in the guard’s breath, the finding of consumption of alcohol and presence of smell of alcohol in the breath had remained unchallenged.”
Therefore, the Court rejected the guard’s argument that there was no proof of him drinking alcohol.
Coming to the question of whether compulsory retirement was too severe a punishment, the Court firmly stated that for someone serving as a guard, drinking alcohol while on duty is a very serious issue. A guard has the responsibility of staying alert and protecting the premises.
The judge stated:
“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.”
Finally, the Court said that the punishment given was fair and not shockingly harsh. It refused to interfere with the disciplinary action taken.
As per the judgment:
“the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge.”
Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the guard.
Advocate Prashant Sharma appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Shailendra Singh Kushwaha represented the State of Madhya Pradesh.
This judgment highlights how seriously the courts view misconduct by personnel assigned to protect public functionaries, especially when alcohol is involved during duty hours.
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Drunk Case
