No leniency for cop found drunk on duty, can’t dilute penalty: HC

A police officer, entrusted with the duty of safeguarding law and order, cannot claim leniency if found drunk while on duty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear. The assertion came in a seven-year-old case as a Division Bench of the High Court described such behaviour as “grave misconduct, unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force thereby threatening the public peace and tranquillity.”

Emphasising the higher standards expected from uniformed personnel, the Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri ruled that the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect imposed on a police constable caught under the influence of liquor was neither excessive nor disproportionate.

“Once it is a conceded fact that petitioner is a police officer whose duty is to maintain the law and order, the punishment imposed upon him cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against him,” the Bench said.

The case, filed in 2018, meandered before several Benches for years, but was finally wrapped up in a single hearing by the Bench of Justice Sethi and Justice Suri — underscoring how matters trapped in prolonged litigation often need no more than one focused sitting for a full appraisal of the contentions and record.

The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after the constable filed challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, on October 4, 2017, declining his plea against imposition of punishment.

Opposing the petition, counsel for the UT Administration and other respondents submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were that he – under the influence of liquor –  abused the owner of a hotel and a customer.

“In the medical report, it has already been recorded that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor,” the Bench was told.

The Bench also repelled the plea that the inquiry report was not supplied before the punishment was imposed. It observed that this objection had never been raised before the appellate, revisional or tribunal authorities.

“Raising the same before this Court and that too for the very first time, cannot be allowed,” the Bench said.

Why the Ruling Matters

Beyond the fate of one constable, the judgment reinforces broader principles governing discipline in uniformed services:

*Higher standards: Police officers must maintain exemplary conduct; drunkenness on duty is “grave misconduct” threatening public peace.

*Penalty proportionate: Stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is an appropriate punishment and not open to dilution.

*Delay versus disposal: A petition pending since 2018 was settled in one hearing — showing that prolonged litigation may only need one focused sitting.

*Procedural limits: Fresh objections, like non-supply of the inquiry report, cannot be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction.