Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Forfeiture of Approved Service for Police Constable Found Drunk on Duty; Dismisses Second Appeal

Case Name: Ram Nath vs. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: RSA-185-2006
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court validating the departmental punishment imposed on the appellant, a Punjab Police constable, for being under the influence of liquor while on duty. The Court held that a proper enquiry was conducted, adequate opportunity was given, and the punishment of forfeiture of three years of approved service was neither illegal nor disproportionate. The Court found no violation of natural justice and held that appellate interference under Section 100 CPC was unwarranted.

Summary: The appellant, a police constable, was alleged to have been intoxicated while performing official duty on the day of a high-profile public function. A complaint was made by the Station House Officer, and the appellant was medically examined, where the doctor opined that he smelled of alcohol. A regular departmental enquiry followed, during which the appellant was served with a summary of allegations, list of documents, and witness statements. Multiple prosecution witnesses were examined, but the appellant neither cross-examined them nor produced credible defence evidence.

The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of dereliction of duty. After issuing a show-cause notice and considering his reply, the competent authority ordered forfeiture of three years of approved service for the purpose of increments. His departmental appeal was dismissed.

Challenging the punishment, the appellant filed a civil suit contending that no blood or urine test was conducted and that the doctor’s opinion was insufficient to prove intoxication. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the enquiry was fair and the misconduct proven. The first appellate court affirmed the finding, reiterating that police personnel are held to higher standards of discipline and that the appellant failed to rebut the charges.

In the second appeal, the appellant repeated the same arguments. The High Court held that the factual findings recorded by both courts were well-reasoned, based on evidence, and not perverse. The Court reiterated that being drunk on duty constitutes serious misconduct in a disciplined force and that judicial review in second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law, none of which arose in this case.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the forfeiture of approved service, holding that principles of natural justice were fully observed, the enquiry was legally conducted, and the punishment was proportionate to the misconduct.