While Chief Constable Vine said it would not be fair to go into the details of the Tayside officers, he made it clear he was unhappy at the system that allowed them to be censured in a criminal court and then cleared in a tribunal to serve as officers of the law.

“The reason these two officers are still serving is down to the fact that a conviction for drink-driving in a criminal court does not automatically lead to dismissal from employment,” he said.

“The officers concerned would have had to appear at a police misconduct hearing after the trial, which is usually held before a chief superintendent and not by the chief constable of the force.

“You can’t enter misconduct proceedings with a preconceived idea of what went on in the criminal trial and the tribunal must come to its own conclusion based on the evidence it receives. That is why there are 29 officers who are still serving throughout Scotland with convictions for drink-driving.

“What sometimes happens is the tribunal will find the officer is guilty of misconduct and the case will be referred straight to a police appeals tribunal, usually chaired by a QC, which has the power to overturn the decision of the original tribunal.

“In cases such as this you will have an officer who has been convicted of drink-driving offence continuing to serve, very often against the wishes of the chief constable.

“My personal view is that a drink-driving conviction is incompatible with being a police officer.”

Chief Constable Vine’s comments are in line with those he made yesterday in a speech to the joint police board.

He revealed that since April 2006, 351 people have been reported for drink-driving and said, “These people believe that the prospects of being stopped on any day of the week are remote and they are willing to take the chance anyway. They believe that there is a reliance on automated equipment and that is not the case. The figures are disturbing. I would like to see the persistent offenders treated more seriously by the courts.”

Sergeant Malcolm Gibbs, secretary of the Scottish Police Federation Tayside branch, said while he broadly agreed with Chief Constable Vine’s comments, individual circumstances had to be considered.

“Police officers are like every member of the public — they’re human beings and they are fallible,” he said.

“In cases where police officers break the law we have to consider that these indiscretions must have happened for a reason, and these reasons must be fully investigated, but I don’t think it necessarily makes the officer’s position in the force untenable.

“My view is that while we should never seek to take away the seriousness of the criminal offence of drink-driving, a case that reaches a misconduct hearing and gets all the way through to an appeals tribunal should be treated on its own merits.

“If the officer is then cleared to serve we know that the decision was not taken lightly and that it was the judgment of the very learned people that serve on these bodies.”