In a ruling that clarifies disciplinary standards for on duty conduct, the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed a four-month suspension for a plainclothes security guard at Alicante airport. The penalty followed an incident in which the guard left his post three hours before the scheduled shift end after drinking and later claimed he was not technically on duty when he decided to quit. Source: Supreme Court of Appeals.
The events unfolded on May 1, 2021, during the guard’s assignment with the Finance Detachment at Alicante Command Airport Division, covering the period from 15:00 to 23:00. Sources: Supreme Court of Appeals.
Around 20:00, a police officer observed that the civil guard was not in his assigned position. A search ensued across the airport, including restrooms, and his phone was called repeatedly without success. Sources: Supreme Court of Appeals.
Security camera footage later confirmed that the guard departed the airport in his private vehicle at 20:13. Sources: Supreme Court of Appeals.
A civilian reported the guard in his vehicle, still in uniform, to 112 from Paseo de El Rebolledo. He was escorted back to the airport by armed institute patrols and subjected to a breathalyzer test that yielded a positive result. Eyewitnesses also testified that he showed signs of intoxication that day. Sources: Supreme Court of Appeals.
The central military court upheld the disciplinary sanction of a four-month work suspension, on the grounds that the offender had been in a state of intoxication while performing his duties. Source: Supreme Court of Appeals.
The agent later appealed, arguing that the facts demonstrated he was not on duty when he consumed alcohol and that, since he was off duty at the time, there was no basis to claim he was serving while intoxicated. The appeal was rejected on the basis that the work period for that day extended from 15:00 to 23:00 and that the absence from service did not suspend the employee’s obligations during all hours of the shift. Source: Supreme Court of Appeals.
The court noted that intoxication occurred before the end of the scheduled service and that the employee had been found drunk while the period for performing his duties was active. The decision affirmed that intoxication during a duty period constitutes a serious misconduct that undermines operational safety and discipline. Source: Supreme Court of Appeals.