Delhi High Court quashes CRPF constable’s dismissal order over ‘drunk on duty’ charge; here’s why

The court described the dismissal order of the disciplinary authority as ‘career death and practically a civil death in the case of a government servant.’

Observing the suffering of the constable for nearly 20 years since his dismissal, the high court modified the punishment to the stoppage of his two annual grade increments. It further directed reinstatement with 50% of the salary and allowances (excluding duty-related allowances like Uniform and Hard Duty Allowance).

Here are the key observations of the bench for quashing the constable’s dismissal order.

• The court found the dismissal from service to be an extreme penalty disproportionate to the misconduct involved.
• It noted that no specific notice proposing a major penalty of dismissal from service was given to the constable earlier.
• The disciplinary authority took into consideration previous incidents of consumption of liquor, whereas the charge sheet in question had a solitary incident of 2005.
• The disciplinary authority’s extreme order of dismissal from service was a career death and practically a civil death in the case of a government servant.
• The general remarks of disciplinary authority labelling him as ‘habitually indisciplined’ were considered to be contrary to principles of ‘natural justice’ and ‘arbitrary’.

Background of case

Appointed as Constable (GD) in the CRPF in 1996, the man was dismissed in 2005 for consuming alcohol on government duty without prior permission of the competent authority. In his response, the constable pleaded that he was traumatised by his daughter’s illness from epilepsy when he consumed a small quantity of liquor to overcome the mental agony.

He appealed against the disciplinary authority’s order before the appellate authority, arguing that the inquiry report dealt with a solitary incident of being drunk on duty, whereas the disciplinary authority had taken into account the past conduct as well.

However, the appellate authority rejected his appeal, labelling him a ‘habitual offender.’

Later, he challenged the appellate authority’s order before the revisional authority (Deputy Inspector General of Police), where it was rejected.

The constable moved the high court challenging the orders of the three authorities.

The court set aside the order passed by the discipline authority, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority on November 12.

From the homepage

Bihar’s Chief Ministers | Nitish Kumar: Journey from early poll losses to becoming longest-serving CM

Bihar Election Results 2025 LIVE Updates: What’s next for Tejashwi Yadav after the RJD debacle

Want to know what’s wrong with the Congress? Look at its reaction to Bihar loss