Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service

"Series of Incidents Across Multiple Courts Prove Petitioner Attended Duty Under Influence of Alcohol" —  On February 23, 2026, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, dismissed the writ petition , an Office Subordinate who had been removed from service. The Court upheld the punishment of removal from service imposed under Rule 9(ix) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, holding that a chain of medical evidence, breath analyser reports, and testimonies of Presiding Officers and police had conclusively established repeated and grave misconduct by the petitioner — that of attending court duties under the influence of alcohol, abusing advocates in filthy language, and misbehaving with the family members of Presiding Officers while on guard duty.

"The Petitioner Attended Night Guard Duty At Residential Quarters of the Presiding Officer In A Heavy Drunken State — When Asked, He Gave Reckless Answers and Denied Intoxication"

M. Venkatesulu was appointed as an Office Subordinate on November 6, 2014. His troubles with the disciplinary machinery began almost immediately after joining service. While posted at the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda, a complaint was received not just from one source but from seven Advocate Clerks and three members of the general public, alleging that he was demanding money from litigants and threatening parties. More gravely, there was a simultaneous complaint that he was attending court duties in a drunken state and abusing advocates in filthy language.

Acting on this complaint, the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda referred the petitioner for medical examination at the Government Hospital, Penukonda on May 14, 2015. The Civil Assistant Surgeon's certificate dated May 14, 2015 confirmed that the petitioner had consumed alcohol. The complaint was then forwarded to the District Judge, Ananthapuramu, who referred it to the Vigilance Cell for formal enquiry. After examining witnesses, an enquiry report was submitted on January 12, 2016.

A show cause notice was issued asking why his probation should not be terminated. The petitioner denied the charges. Thereafter, formal charge memos were framed. Charge No. 1 — demanding money from litigants — was dropped as not proved after enquiry. However, Charge No. 2 — attending duty on May 14, 2015 in a drunken state and abusing an Advocate in filthy language — was found proved by the Enquiry Officer.

But the misconduct did not stop there. The petitioner was subsequently sent on deputation to the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kalyandurg. History repeated itself. On July 28, 2016, while performing night guard duty at the residential quarters of the Presiding Officer, the petitioner was found in a heavily intoxicated state. When questioned, rather than cooperating, he gave reckless answers and flatly denied intoxication. The Presiding Officer summoned the Sub-Inspector of Police from Kalyandurg and sent the petitioner to the Government Community Health Centre for medical examination. The Medical Officer confirmed alcohol consumption with a blood alcohol level of 40 ml per 100 mg — Stage 1 intoxication. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioner under Section 510 of the Indian Penal Code (misconduct in public by a drunken person) as Crime No. 95/2016 at Kalyandurg Police Station.

The misconduct spread to a third posting as well. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri issued a fresh charge memo on February 18, 2017, again alleging that the petitioner was attending duties in a drunken state. Additionally, the petitioner was found to have sent an anonymous letter attempting to influence the disciplinary authority — an act that further aggravated his case.

After considering the entire chain of misconduct, the 2nd Respondent — the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu — passed the impugned order dated June 4, 2018, imposing the punishment of removal from service under Rule 9(ix) of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Two arguments were pressed before the High Court on behalf of the petitioner. First, a procedural objection was raised that the Enquiry Officer had not examined the wife of PW-1 (the Presiding Officer, Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda), and this constituted a violation of the procedure contemplated under law. Second, a medical defence was offered — that the petitioner was on medication for a liver ailment, and it was this medicine, not alcohol, that caused the smell of alcohol on his breath.

The State, through its Standing Counsel, countered that the misconduct was not an isolated incident but a pattern of behaviour spanning three different court postings — Penukonda, Kalyandurg, and Kadiri. The petitioner had attended duties repeatedly under the influence of alcohol and had misconducted himself with advocates and the family members of Presiding Officers, amounting to conduct unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Medical Evidence Leaves No Room for Doubt

The Division Bench undertook a careful perusal of the record and arrived at clear findings on each limb of the petitioner's defence.

On the medical defence of liver medication, the Court rejected it outright. "Though the petitioner submitted that he used to take medicines for his illness of liver and the same smells of Alcohol, the said contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the doctors, who have examined him have issued certificates that the petitioner is under the influence of Alcohol," the Court held. Critically, the breath analyser test conducted by PW-3, the Sub-Inspector of Police, showed a reading of 63% — a figure that left no ambiguity about intoxication and could not plausibly be explained away by liver medication.

On the question of witness examination, the Court found no procedural illegality warranting interference under Article 226. The enquiry had examined PW-1, the Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, PW-3, the Sub-Inspector of Police, and PW-4, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, whose evidence cumulatively established the charge. The non-examination of the wife of the Presiding Officer did not vitiate the proceedings, given the overwhelming corroborating evidence from independent and credible sources including medical officers, a police officer, and the Presiding Officer himself.

The Court recorded that the petitioner "attended the night guard duty at residential quarters of Presiding Officer on 28.07.2016 in a heavy drunken state and when asked he gave reckless answers and denied that he was under intoxication." This was not merely a case of consuming alcohol — it was a case of performing guard duty at a judicial officer's home in an intoxicated state and then misbehaving with the officer's family members.

On Proportionality of Punishment

The petitioner had implicitly challenged the severity of the punishment — removal from service — as disproportionate. The Court found no merit in this argument either. "Having considered the case on hand, it is evident that, there are series of incidents against the petitioner that he attended the duty by consuming alcohol," the Bench observed. The misconduct was not a one-time lapse but a persistent and repeated pattern across three different judicial postings — Penukonda, Kalyandurg, and Kadiri — spanning the years 2015, 2016, and 2017. Each incident had been independently documented through medical examination, departmental enquiry, and in one case, even a criminal complaint under Section 510 IPC.

A government servant employed in a judicial establishment, who repeatedly attends duty drunk, abuses advocates in filthy language, misconducts himself with the family members of a Presiding Officer while on guard duty, and even attempts to influence disciplinary proceedings through anonymous letters, cannot escape the severest penalty available. The Court found that the punishment of removal from service under Rule 9(ix) was entirely commensurate with the gravity and repetition of the misconduct established on record.

Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters

The Court's approach also serves as an important reaffirmation of the settled principle that a High Court in writ jurisdiction does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary proceedings. It will not re-appreciate evidence unless the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, unsupported by any evidence, or arrived at by violating principles of natural justice. In this case, the findings were based on cogent, independent, and corroborated evidence — medical certificates from two different government hospitals, a breath analyser test, testimony of a police officer, and the deposition of the Presiding Officer. "Nothing has been elicited to disprove the evidence on record," the Court noted, leaving no basis for interference.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of removal from service dated June 4, 2018 in its entirety. No order as to costs was passed. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Date of Decision: February 23, 2026