Disciplinary Action Against Intoxicated Police Constable

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav flagged the rising issue of police personnel being distracted by mobile phones and social media while on duty, alongside traditional intoxication like alcohol. The court urged senior police officers to implement monitoring and sensitization measures to ensure discipline and proper conduct during duty hours. 

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. State of MP (2025). 

What was the Background of Ashok Kumar Tripathi v. State of MP (2025) Case ? 

• The appellant, Ashok Kumar Tripathi, was serving as a police constable in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 
• On 4th August 2007, at approximately 6:00 am, the appellant was posted on guard duty at Bungalow No. 16 in Gwalior. 
• The said bungalow was the residence of a protectee requiring security arrangements. 
• While on duty, the appellant was discovered sleeping under the influence of alcohol. 
• A charge-sheet was issued against the appellant alleging dereliction of duty due to consumption of liquor whilst performing guard duties. 
• A departmental enquiry was initiated and conducted against the appellant in accordance with service rules. 
• During the departmental proceedings, evidence was recorded from Dr. A.K. Saxena, who testified that the appellant's breath contained the fragrance of liquor. 
• The departmental enquiry concluded that the charges against the appellant were proved. 
• Vide order dated 31st December 2007, the Commandant of 5th Battalion, SAF, Morena imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the appellant. 
• The appellant challenged the said order before the Deputy Inspector General of SAF, which appeal was dismissed. 
• Subsequently, the appellant filed a mercy petition before the Director General of Police, Bhopal, vide order dated 9th August 2011, which was also rejected. 
• The punishment order was confirmed vide order dated 18th March 2008. 
• The appellant then approached the learned Single Judge by filing Writ Petition No. 2907 of 2012 challenging his compulsory retirement. 
• The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 2nd April 2025. 
• Prior to this incident, the appellant had a disciplinary record showing he had been punished vide order dated 30th April 2007 for remaining absent from duty, for which one increment was stopped with cumulative effect. 
• The appellant's counsel contended that no medical examination or breath test was conducted, and the findings were based merely on a smell test. 
• It was argued that the doctor had found the appellant fit despite the alleged drunken condition, and that evidence on record was disregarded. 
• The respondent-State contended that being a member of a disciplined force posted on guard duty, the appellant was expected to remain vigilant and serious towards his duty. 
• Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 1140 of 2025 before the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The departmental enquiry was based on Dr. A.K. Saxena's testimony confirming the appellant's breath contained the fragrance of liquor, and the Court held that a police employee performing duties under the influence of liquor is a recipe for law-and-order problems where many things are at stake. 
• Relying on Union of India v. K.G. Soni, (2006) the Court held that judicial interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only if the punishment is illogical, procedurally improper, or shocking to conscience, and found the compulsory retirement proportionate to the charges. 
• The Court noted the appellant's prior disciplinary record for remaining absent from duty, indicating habitual dereliction, and emphasized that being posted on guard duty at a protectee's residence required greater vigilance as intoxication may breed indiscipline and cause accidents or mishaps. 
• Finding no grounds for interference, the Court affirmed the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition and upheld the compulsory retirement. 
• The Court drew attention to another form of intoxication prevailing in police departments—mobile phones and social media usage—observing that personnel on guard, court, and law and order duties are commonly engaged in observing mobile and social media, creating indiscipline, casualness, and affecting their disposition through incriminating clips. 
• The Court suggested incorporating sensitization programmes in police training centres and establishing mechanisms for constant supervision to check and verify the social media presence of police personnel while on duty. 
• The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police and Additional Directors General (Administration and Training) for information and contemplation, terming the issue as "food for thought" requiring appropriate mechanisms as per rules, regulations, and guidelines. 

What are the Legal and Disciplinary Standards for Police Personnel on Guard Duty Regarding Alcohol Consumption and Use of Mobile/Social Media? 

• Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. 
• Relying on Union of India and Another v. K.G. Soni, (2006), the Court held that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited, and courts should not interfere unless the punishment is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or is shocking to the conscience of the court. 
• A police employee performing duties while under the influence of liquor constitutes serious misconduct, and the punishment of compulsory retirement for a constable found sleeping under the influence of alcohol while on guard duty at a protectee's residence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence. 
• Evidence based on medical testimony confirming the fragrance of liquor in breath, even without formal breath analyzer tests, can form a valid basis for proving charges in departmental enquiries, and prior disciplinary record is a relevant consideration indicating habitual dereliction of duty. 
• Police personnel posted on guard duty at residences of protectees are held to a higher standard of vigilance and discipline, as any dereliction may cause accidents, mishaps, or security breaches. 
• Excessive use of mobile phones and social media by police personnel while on duty creates indiscipline, casualness, and affects their disposition, warranting institutional mechanisms for supervision and regulation as per departmental rules, regulations, and guidelines.