Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In a police personnel's plea against compulsory retirement given for sleeping under influence while on guard duty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court flagged growing mobile/social media 'intoxication' among the 'uniform clad departments' suggesting that presence of police personnel on social media be checked while they are on duty.

The bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav observed;

"This is the food for thought and Senior Police Officers may discuss and frame a mechanism as per their Rules, Regulations and Guidelines," the court added.

The petitioner, a police employee, was posted on guard duty in Gwalior, but while on duty, he was found sleeping under the influence of alcohol. Thereafter, a department inquiry was initiated, and as a punishment, he was granted compulsory retirement. The petitioner then approached the SAF Deputy Inspector General, but the same was dismissed. The Director General of Police, as well as the writ court, also dismissed the appeals of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court.

The counsel for the petitioner claimed that the departmental inquiry was conducted without any medical examination or breath test, and was based merely on a smell test. He contended that the charge of intoxication was deemed proved based on the doctor's opinion. It was asserted that the doctor had found the petitioner fit, despite being in a drunken condition. But the evidence on record was discarded while passing the punishment order.

The counsel appearing for the respondent claimed that the petitioner, being in the disciplined force and posted on guard duty, was expected to remain 'more vigilant and serious', which he failed to comply with.

The court, after examining the records, noted that the departmental inquiry was based on the testimony of the doctor, who confirmed that the petitioner's breath contained the fragrance of liquor.

Referring to the Supreme Court case of Union of India v K.G. Soni [(2006) 6 SCC 794], the court reiterated that courts could interfere in disciplinary orders if the penalty was illogical, procedurally improper or shockingly disproportionate. Examining the present case, the bench noted that the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

The court further noted that the petitioner had a prior record of indiscipline for remaining absent from duty, for which a penalty was imposed. "Thus, the conduct of petitioner also assumes importance as he appears to be habitual of dereliction of duty", the court added.

While dismissing the appeal, the court noted,

However, the court also drew attention to the emerging issue of police officers using mobile phones and social media while on duty. The court observed;

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Tripathi v State of MP (WRIT APPEAL 1140 of 2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 199

For Appellant: Advocate Prashant Sharma

For Respondent: Additional Advocate General/Senior Advocate Vivek Khedkar with Advocate Sohit Mishra

Click here to read/download Order