Madras High Court: In an appeal challenging the order of the writ court, wherein police personnel was found in a drunken state while deposing before a Judicial Magistrate, the Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and N. Senthilkumar, JJ., underscored that the absence of blood and urine tests does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that the incident occurred inside the court hall in the presence of the Magistrate, who immediately directed medical examination, and highlighted that the drunkenness certificate issued by the Medical Officer, together with the Magistrate’s observations, was sufficient to establish misconduct.
Background
The dispute arose when a police officer, while serving as Special Sub-Inspector1, appeared before the Judicial Magistrate to adduce evidence in a criminal case. The Magistrate observed that he was in a drunken state, shouting incoherently, and smelling of alcohol. A medical examination confirmed drunkenness, though blood and urine tests were not conducted.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, resulting in compulsory retirement. On appeal, the punishment was modified to postponement of increments for 3 years. The police officer’s revision petition was rejected, leading him to file a writ petition 4 years later. The writ court allowed the petition, emphasising the absence of blood and urine tests.
The police officer argued that without such tests, drunkenness could not be established, relying on judicial precedents. However, the Department contended that the Medical Officer’s certificate, coupled with the Magistrate’s observations and the officer’s lack of objection at the time was sufficient proof in departmental proceedings.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that to convict a person under criminal law, the prosecution is required to establish the charge by strict proof of evidence. However, no such strict proof is required to punish an employee under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (Discipline and Appeal Rules). The Court highlighted that the preponderance of probabilities is sufficient to punish a government employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
The Court noted that, pertinently, the incident occurred inside the court hall and in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate, while recording evidence, found that the respondent was in a drunken state and immediately directed the Sub-Inspector of Police and another constable to take him for medical examination. 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 presence of the Judicial Magistrate.
The Court highlighted that the departmental action is purely based on preponderance of probability and that his act had totally degraded the image of the police force in the court hall. It has to be curbed, otherwise, the misconduct committed by the respondent will ruin the entire police force. The Court noted that the respondent had completed more than 30 years of service, however, he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty while deposing as a witness before the Judicial Magistrate.
The Court remarked that witnesses, including police officials, while deposing before the courts in connection with criminal cases or any other case, are expected to maintain decorum and discipline and depose statements in a truthful manner. This being the settled legal position, any misconduct committed inside a court hall cannot, under any circumstances, be tolerated.
Further, it was brought to the notice of the Court that police personnel attending the courts for deposing are not wearing proper uniform or maintaining decorum. The Court emphasised that a police officer, a medical practitioner, or any other professional, while appearing before the courts to depose as a witness, has to attend the courts in the prescribed uniform, wherever applicable, and maintain absolute integrity, discipline, and devotion to duty while deposing evidence before the courts.
The Court noted that discipline inside the court halls shall be strictly maintained by the judicial officers. In the event of any indiscipline, misconduct, or unusual behaviour on the part of any official witness, the judicial officer concerned is bound to file a complaint before the competent authority for initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceedings and further actions under the relevant provisions of the Act.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Court directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular within 4 weeks mandating police personnel to wear proper uniform and maintain discipline while attending courts, warning of disciplinary action for violations. The Court also directed the Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court, on issuance of such Circular by the Director General of Police, to communicate the said Circular to all the Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu for providing information to the Judicial Officers.
[Tamil Nadu Police v. V. Arumuram, W.A. No. 1850 of 2026, decided on 14-7-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice S.M. Subramaniam
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: R. Gouri, Government Counsel
For the Respondent: T.K. Saravanan
1. Ed. Note: The judgment itself refers to the respondent inconsistently as both a “Special Sub-Inspector of Police” and a “Head Constable” for the relevant period; this report follows the judgment’s primary description.
