Case Note & Summary
The intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was filed by the Director General of Police and other police authorities against the order of a single judge in a writ petition that had set aside the disciplinary punishment imposed on the respondent, a Special Sub-Inspector of Police. The dispute arose when the respondent, while appearing as a witness before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur, on 25.11.2014 in C.C.No.165 of 2007, was observed by the Magistrate to be in a drunken state with an alcoholic smell, incoherent speech, and shouting. The Magistrate directed a medical examination, and a Drunkenness Certificate was issued by the Medical Officer, though no blood or urine tests were conducted. The respondent did not object during the examination. The Magistrate sent a complaint, leading to departmental proceedings under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. After an enquiry where the charge was proved, the Disciplinary Authority imposed compulsory retirement on 04.05.2015. The Appellate Authority modified it to postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect on 14.07.2015, and the Director General of Police rejected the revision on 31.12.2016. The respondent filed a writ petition in 2020, and the single judge allowed it on 20.09.2023 solely on the ground that blood and urine tests were not conducted. In the writ appeal, the appellants contended that the Drunkenness Certificate and the Magistrate's observation were sufficient evidence under the preponderance of probabilities standard applicable to departmental proceedings. The respondent argued that blood and urine tests were essential to prove drunkenness. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that strict proof required in criminal trials is not necessary in disciplinary actions; the preponderance of probabilities standard applies. The Drunkenness Certificate (Ex-P.6) and the lack of objection from the respondent during the medical examination were sufficient. The court emphasized that misconduct inside a court hall cannot be tolerated and directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular within four weeks mandating that police personnel wear proper uniform and maintain decorum while deposing in courts. The impugned writ order was set aside, and the punishment was upheld, with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Standard of Proof - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 3(b) - In departmental proceedings, strict proof required in criminal trials is not necessary; preponderance of probabilities suffices. The court held that the Drunkenness Certificate (Ex-P.6) and the Judicial Magistrate's observation were sufficient to prove misconduct, and the absence of blood/urine tests was not fatal. (Paras 8-10)
B) Service Law - Departmental Punishment - Drunkenness - Proof by Medical Certificate - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 3(b) - A Medical Officer's Certificate of Drunkenness, supported by the delinquent's behavior in court and lack of objection, constitutes adequate evidence to sustain a charge of drunkenness in disciplinary proceedings, even without confirmatory blood or urine tests. (Paras 8, 10)
C) Constitutional Law - Court Decorum - Duty of Police Witnesses - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Police personnel attending courts to depose must wear proper uniform and maintain decorum, integrity, and devotion to duty. The High Court directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular to all police personnel to ensure such standards, and the Registrar (Judicial) to communicate it to all courts. (Paras 11-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the absence of blood and urine tests is fatal to a charge of drunkenness in departmental disciplinary proceedings when a Drunkenness Certificate from a Medical Officer and the observation of the Judicial Magistrate are available.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is allowed; the order of the writ court dated 20.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.4228 of 2020 is set aside; the punishment of postponement of next increment for three years with cumulative effect is upheld; no order as to costs; Director General of Police directed to issue circular within four weeks on uniform and decorum for police personnel appearing in courts; Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the circular to all courts.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Preponderance of probabilities standard in departmental proceedings
- Drunkenness certificate sufficient for disciplinary punishment without blood/urine tests
- Police personnel must maintain decorum and wear uniform while deposing in courts
- Misconduct inside court hall cannot be tolerated
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 76
W.A. No. 1850 of 2026 and CMP No. 16678 of 2026
S.M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar
Citation not available, 2026:MHC:2846
Dr. R. Gouri, Mr. T.K. Saravanan
The Director General of Police, The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order of single judge in writ petition challenging disciplinary punishment.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (police department) seeking to set aside the writ court's order dated 20.09.2023 which had set aside the punishment of postponement of increment for three years imposed on the respondent.
Filing Reason
The writ court had interfered with the modified punishment on the ground that blood and urine tests were not conducted to prove drunkenness.
Previous Decisions
Initially, the Disciplinary Authority imposed compulsory retirement on 04.05.2015; on appeal, the Appellate Authority modified it to postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect on 14.07.2015; the Director General of Police rejected the revision on 31.12.2016. The respondent filed writ petition in 2020 challenging the modified punishment, which was allowed on 20.09.2023. The present appeal is against that writ order.
Issues
Whether the writ court erred in setting aside the disciplinary punishment on the ground that blood and urine tests were not conducted, when the charge of drunkenness was based on a Medical Officer’s Drunkenness Certificate and the observation of the Judicial Magistrate?
Whether in departmental proceedings, strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, or whether preponderance of probabilities is sufficient?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: The Medical Officer certified drunkenness; the respondent did not object during examination; in departmental proceedings, strict proof is not required; the writ court should not have interfered.
Respondent: Blood and urine tests are required to establish drunkenness; their absence vitiates the punishment; relied on certain judicial precedents.
Ratio Decidendi
In departmental disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities and not strict proof as required in criminal trials. A Drunkenness Certificate from a Medical Officer, along with the observations of a Judicial Magistrate, is sufficient to prove misconduct of drunkenness, even in the absence of confirmatory blood and urine tests. Misconduct inside a court hall cannot be tolerated, and police personnel must maintain decorum and wear proper uniform while deposing.
Judgment Excerpts
Preponderance of probabilities is sufficient to punish a Government employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. In the present case, Ex-P.6 Certificate of Drunkenness issued by the Medical Officer would be sufficient to prove the charges framed by the Department.
The respondent neither disputed the Certificate of Drunkenness nor raised any objection during the course of the medical examination.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, while recording evidence, found that the respondent was in a drunken state and immediately, directed the Sub-Inspector of Police and other Constable to take him for medical examination and accordingly, medical examination was conducted and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the misconduct committed by the respondent inside the Court Hall and in the present of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
Such indifferent attitude of attending Court in a drunken state has to be viewed seriously. Departmental action is purely based on preponderance of probability and his act had totally degraded the image of police force in the Court hall and it has to be curbed, otherwise, the misconduct committed by the respondent will ruin the entire police force.
any misconduct committed inside a Court Hall cannot, under any circumstances, be tolerated.
Procedural History
Respondent, a Special Sub-Inspector of Police, appeared as a witness in C.C.No.165 of 2007 before Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur, on 25.11.2014. The Magistrate observed he was drunk, directed medical examination; Drunkenness Certificate issued. Complaint sent to police department. Departmental proceedings initiated under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Charge memo, domestic enquiry, charge proved. Punishment of compulsory retirement ordered on 04.05.2015. On appeal, Deputy Inspector General modified to postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect on 14.07.2015. Revision to DGP rejected on 31.12.2016. Writ petition filed in 2020 in W.P.No.4228 of 2020. Single judge allowed petition on 20.09.2023, setting aside punishment. Present writ appeal filed by the authorities. Heard on 14.07.2026, allowed, writ order set aside, punishment upheld.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955: Rule 3(b)
