The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ashok Kumar Tripathi, a police guard, challenging his compulsory retirement on grounds of misconduct involving consumption of alcohol while on duty. The court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision, holding that the findings were based on evidence and not liable to judicial interference.
Background
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Tripathi, was serving as a Guard posted at bungalow No.16, allotted to a High Court Judge at Gwalior. On August 4, 2007, at around 6:00 a.m., he was allegedly found sleeping during duty and was suspected to be under the influence of alcohol. Following an incident where he was awakened by the Judge, he was sent for a medical examination which confirmed the presence of alcohol in his breath.
Tripathi had a prior record of similar misconduct. When previously posted at bungalow No.5, he had been found asleep during patrolling and was let off with a warning after admitting his fault.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner denied the charges and submitted that he was suffering from cold and cough for which he consumed syrup that might have contained alcohol. He argued that the Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) only noted the presence of alcohol but did not conclude intoxication. He further contended that since the matter involved a High Court Judge and he belonged to a uniformed force, he refrained from contesting the medical report in detail.
The State, represented by the Government Advocate, defended the disciplinary action, asserting that the presence of alcohol in breath and prior warning indicated serious misconduct unbecoming of a disciplined force.
Departmental Enquiry and Medical Evidence
A departmental enquiry was conducted, during which Dr. A.K. Saxena, the medical officer who examined the petitioner, testified:
“Smell of alcohol was present in the breath. He has consumed alcohol but is not under intoxication.”
(MLC Report No. 2784 dated 04-08-2007)
The court noted that while the petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor on the presence of alcohol in his breath, he failed to do so. The court emphasized that findings related to consumption of alcohol were not challenged during enquiry.
Court’s Analysis
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, while dismissing the petition, relied on several Supreme Court judgments including State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review in departmental disciplinary matters. The Court observed:
“This Court 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 reiterated that departmental enquiries are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities, not by the strict standards of proof required in criminal trials.
Decision
The High Court held that the finding regarding the petitioner’s consumption of alcohol on duty was supported by unchallenged medical evidence and was not perverse or baseless. It ruled that:
“Punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge which was levelled against him.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
