Gwalior- In a ruling that bridges a past incident of misconduct with a pressing modern-day challenge, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has not only upheld the compulsory retirement of a police constable found drunk on duty in 2007 but has also issued a groundbreaking directive to the state's top police official. The Court, while dismissing the constable's 18-year-long legal battle, identified a new, pervasive threat to discipline within the force: "mobile intoxication."

Warning that addiction to smartphones and social media is creating "indiscipline and casualness" among officers on sensitive duties, the Bench of Justices Anand Pathak and Pushpendra Yadav has formally asked the Director General of Police (DGP) to devise a mechanism to curb the menace. This transforms a routine service matter into a significant judicial commentary on 21st-century policing, ordering the police leadership to confront the digital distractions that are compromising vigilance as seriously as it would alcohol.

The Case of the Sleeping Guard

The matter dates back to the early hours of August 4, 2007, when Constable Ashok Kumar Tripathi was posted on guard duty at Bungalow No. 16 in Gwalior. According to the chargesheet, at around 6:00 AM, he was found asleep and unresponsive. The key allegation was that he was "under the influence of alcohol."

A departmental enquiry followed, during which the testimony of a doctor, Dr. A.K. Saxena, proved pivotal. The doctor stated that the constable's "breathe contained fragrance of liquor." Notably, no medical examination or breathalyzer test was conducted; the finding was based on this "smell test." The charge was proved, leading to the punishment of compulsory retirement by the Commandant of the 5th Battalion, SAF, Morena, on December 31, 2007.

Tripathi's subsequent appeals to the Deputy Inspector General of SAF and a mercy petition to the Director General of Police were both dismissed. A single judge of the High Court also rejected his writ petition in April 2025, leading to the present appeal.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellant's counsel, Prashant Sharma, argued that the entire case rested on a flimsy foundation. He contended that without any scientific or medical test, merely relying on the smell of liquor was insufficient to prove the charge of intoxication. He further argued that the doctor's statement itself indicated the constable was "fit," and the writ court had failed to consider this crucial aspect.

Opposing the appeal, the State, represented by Additional Advocate General Vivek Khedkar, defended the punishment. He emphasized that as a member of a disciplined force, especially one entrusted with the security of a protectee, the constable was expected to exhibit the highest level of vigilance. His dereliction of duty, compounded by alleged alcohol consumption, warranted a stern response, and compulsory retirement was not a disproportionate penalty.

The Court's Reasoning and Dismissal

After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the Bench found no merit in the appeal. Justice Pathak, authoring the judgment, noted that an employee in the police department performing duties while inebriated is "a recipe for law and order problem or dereliction of duty where many things are at stake."

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's precedent in Union of India vs. K.G. Soni, which dictates that judicial interference in disciplinary matters is only warranted if the punishment "shocks the conscience of the court." The Bench found that compulsory retirement for such a serious infraction was not disproportionate.

Furthermore, the Court took note of the constable's past service record, which included a prior punishment for remaining absent from duty. This, the judgment stated, indicated a pattern of "dereliction of duty," strengthening the department's case against him.

While closing the chapter on the 2007 incident, the Bench devoted a significant part of its judgment to a contemporary issue it deemed equally, if not more, dangerous.

Justice Pathak, in an obiter dictum (a judicial remark not essential to the decision), drew the attention of senior police officers to what he termed the "other Intoxication prevailing in the uniform clad departments like Police," which is the "Intoxication of Mobile/Social Media."

The Court observed, "Nowadays it is commonly observed that Guards on Bungalow duties, Court duties, Law and Order duties... are involved in observing Mobile and Social Media. This creates indiscipline, casualness in duties and at times incriminating Social Media clips, pollutes the mind and affects disposition of policeman."

The Bench recommended that the police leadership incorporate sensitization programs in training centers and develop a mechanism for the "constant supervision of police personnel and their presence on Social Media." It directed a copy of the order to be sent to the Director General of Police and other top officials in Bhopal "for information and contemplation."