Sanjeev Sirohi
MP, Oct 04, KDC: The Gwalior Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in its recent judgment in Ashok Kumar Tripathi vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No. 1140 of 2025), delivered on 11-09-2025, candidly admitted that “social media intoxication” is prevalent among police personnel posted at residences of protectees, courts, or even on law-and-order duty. The Bench stressed the urgent need to evolve a mechanism to supervise the online presence of police officials, noting that this issue requires immediate attention.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav was hearing the case of a police official who was found sleeping under the influence of alcohol during guard duty. The Court upheld his compulsory retirement, ruling that the punishment was not disproportionate to the charges against him, and dismissed his appeal.
Justice Anand Pathak, writing the judgment for the Bench, noted in para 1 that the appeal was filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order of 02-04-2025 by a Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2907/2012, which had dismissed the petitioner’s case.
In para 2, the Court recorded that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired after being found sleeping under the influence of alcohol while on guard duty at Bungalow No. 16, Gwalior on 04-08-2007. A departmental enquiry proved the charges, and his appeals before higher authorities, including the DGP, were rejected. His writ petition was also dismissed, leading him to approach the Division Bench.
Para 3 summarizes the petitioner’s argument that no medical or breath test was conducted, and the finding was based only on a doctor’s smell test. He contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was drunk, and the Writ Court had erred in dismissing his plea.
In para 4, the State opposed the appeal, submitting that as a member of a disciplined force on guard duty, the petitioner was expected to be vigilant, and his conduct justified compulsory retirement.
After hearing both sides (para 5), the Court noted in para 6 that departmental proceedings, supported by the testimony of Dr. A.K. Saxena, confirmed the presence of liquor in the petitioner’s breath.
In para 7, the Bench emphasized that a police employee performing duties under the influence of alcohol poses serious risks, and such misconduct must be treated with severity. It held that compulsory retirement was not disproportionate.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents (para 8), the Court reiterated that judicial review is limited to the decision-making process, and punishment should not be interfered with unless it shocks the conscience of the court, reported news agency Kashmir Dot Com.
In para 9, the Court cited further rulings on departmental enquiries, reaffirming that the process was properly followed.
Para 10 noted the petitioner’s prior misconduct—remaining absent from duty in 2007, for which his increment was stopped—showing a pattern of dereliction.
Para 11 highlighted that intoxication during protectee guard duty could lead to indiscipline and potential mishaps, making vigilance essential.
In para 12, the Court concluded that no interference was warranted, affirmed the Single Judge’s order, and dismissed the appeal.
Most significantly, in para 13, the Court raised concern about another form of “intoxication” among police personnel—excessive use of mobile phones and social media while on duty. The Bench observed that such distraction creates indiscipline, casualness, and even exposure to harmful content, and called for attention from senior police officers.
In para 14, the Bench suggested incorporating sensitization programmes in police training centers and creating mechanisms for supervision of police personnel’s social media use during duty.
Finally, in para 15, the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police, PHQ Bhopal, and senior police officials for consideration.
