The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the decision to compulsorily retire a guard, who had been found sleeping on duty at the official bungalow of a High Court judge in Gwalior in 2007 [Ashok Kumar Tripathi v State of MP and Others]..The medical examination had revealed smell of alcohol in the guard’s breath but declared that he was not under intoxication. The guard himself claimed he had consumed a cough syrup on account of ill health and argued that there was no evidence of alcohol consumption..Justice GS Ahluwalia said that smell of alcohol in the guard's breath in itself was sufficient to prove that the guard had consumed liquor.The Court explained that when a person consumes alcohol, he starts regaining consciousness with passage of time on account of reduction of its effects.“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 single-judge said..It added that since 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. Thus, the Court rejected the argument that there was no evidence with regard to the consumption of alcohol. On whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the charge leveled, the Court said that in case of a guard, consumption of alcohol is a serious misconduct.“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,” Justice Ahluwalia ruled.Accordingly, the Court said the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge and thus dismissed the petition..Advocate Prashant Sharma represented the petitioner. Advocate Shailendra Singh Kushwaha represented the State.[Read Judgment]
