Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a police constable challenging his compulsory retirement after being found intoxicated while on guard duty. The Court upheld the disciplinary action, observing that such misconduct in a disciplined force could have grave consequences for law and order. Significantly, the Bench also highlighted a growing concern over “social media intoxication” among police personnel, urging senior officers to take corrective measures.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a police constable who was assigned to guard duty at a protected residence in Gwalior. During his shift, he was found sleeping under the influence of alcohol. A departmental inquiry confirmed the charges, leading to an order of compulsory retirement issued by the Commandant of the 5th Battalion, SAF, Morena.
The constable challenged the order before the Deputy Inspector General and later filed a mercy petition before the Director General of Police, both of which were rejected. His writ petition was also dismissed by the Single Judge, prompting the present appeal before the Division Bench.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the punishment was based on insufficient evidence. It was contended that no medical or breath analysis test was conducted, and the finding of intoxication relied solely on the doctor’s claim of detecting the smell of alcohol. The petitioner further submitted that the doctor had declared him medically fit, and mere failure to respond during duty should not have been equated with intoxication. It was also argued that the Single Judge failed to consider the material evidence properly and that the punishment was disproportionate to the charge.
Contentions of the Respondents:
Counsel for the State opposed the appeal, asserting that a police officer on guard duty is expected to exercise a high degree of vigilance and discipline. The petitioner’s conduct, they argued, was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force and posed serious risks to security. Therefore, the decision to impose compulsory retirement was justified and proportionate to the misconduct.
Observations of the Courts:
The Court, after examining the records, held that the findings of the departmental inquiry were supported by evidence, including the testimony of the medical officer who confirmed the presence of alcohol on the petitioner’s breath. The Bench observed that “an employee of the police force performing duties in an inebriated state is a recipe for law and order problems and dereliction of duty, where much is at stake.” It further noted that the petitioner was tasked with protecting a person of importance, making his conduct particularly grave.
The Court referred to the Top Court’s decision in Union of India v. K.G. Soni, reiterating that judicial interference with disciplinary punishment is limited unless the penalty is “shockingly disproportionate.” In the present case, the Bench found the punishment neither excessive nor unjustified. The Court also took note of the petitioner’s prior disciplinary history, including a penalty for unauthorized absence, indicating a pattern of misconduct. It emphasized that habitual indiscipline undermines the credibility and efficiency of the police force.
Before parting, the bench made a significant observation on a contemporary issue, the increasing misuse of mobile phones and social media by police personnel during duty hours. The Court remarked that such behaviour often leads to negligence, indiscipline, and even exposure to harmful content that may affect an officer’s judgment.
The bench suggested that the police leadership consider incorporating sensitisation programmes in training curricula and develop monitoring mechanisms to curb the misuse of social media by personnel while on duty.
The decision of the Court:
Concluding that the disciplinary proceedings were fair and the punishment proportionate to the misconduct, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of compulsory retirement. The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police and other senior officials to consider implementing preventive and supervisory measures regarding the misuse of mobile phones and social media by police personnel.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Tripathi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 1140 of 2025
Coram: Justice Anand Pathak, Justice Pushpendra Yadav
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Prashant Sharma
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Vivek Khedkar, Sohit Mishra
Picture Source :
