Madhya Pradesh High Court Flags Growing Social Media 'Intoxication' Among Police; Suggests Sensitization Programmes

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while flagging the growing social media intoxication among Police personnel, has suggested sensitization programmes in Police Training Centers and supervision while on duty.

The Court was considering an Appeal against an order whereby the Writ Petition of the Petitioner challenging punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him was dismissed.

The Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav observed, "...Before parting, this Court craves attention of Senior Police Officers of Police Department about other Intoxication prevailing in the uniform clad departments like Police, said Intoxication is of Mobile/Social Media. In the present case, where a police constable was posted on Guard Duties at the residence of a Protectee where he was found in dereliction of duties because of consumption of liquor but nowadays it is commonly observed that Guards on Bungalow duties, Court duties, Law and Order duties or duties inter alia where Police Personnel posted at a place where they have to do sedentary jobs, 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. This issue deserves attention of Senior Police Officers and remedial measures as well."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Prashant Sharma, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Vivek Khedkar.

Facts of the Case

The matter pertained to reinstatement of services of the Petitioner, who was given compulsory retirement by the Respondents. A charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner with the allegation that while on duty, he was found sleeping under the influence of alcohol. In the departmental enquiry, the charge was proved against the Petitioner; therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. The Petitioner challenged the said order before Dy. Inspector General of SAF first and later before the Director General of Police but both times it was dismissed.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that without conducting any medical examination or breath test merely on the basis of smell test, the doctor opined that liquor was consumed by the petitioner and on the basis of evidence of doctor, the charge of consumption of liquor was found proved. He submitted that merely on the allegation that Petitioner did not respond to the call, he was found guilty of taking liquor while on duty and sleeping and the evidence surfaced on record has been totally discarded while passing the order of punishment against the Petitioner.

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that an employee, that too in Police Department, if performs duties while under influence of liquor or in an inebriated condition, is a recipe for law and order problems or dereliction of duty where many things are at stake and therefore, conduct of police officer/employee is to be seen in that way.

"If police constable/employee is guilty of such misconduct then it is to be construed seriously. However, in the present case petitioner has been compulsorily retired and that is not disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner", the Court observed.

Reference was made to Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Another Vs. K.G. Soni, (2006) and the scope of departmental enquiry was discussed with other case laws such as Kanwar Amninder Singh Vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, through its Registrar General, 2021, State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Heem Singh, (2021), State of Karnataka and another Vs. N. Gangraj, (2020), State Bank of India and another Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006).

Noting that apart from the present departmental proceedings, earlier also the Petitioner was punished for remaining absent on duty, for which he was punished for stopping one increment with cumulative effect, the Court stressed that the conduct of the Petitioner also assumes importance as he appears to be habitual of dereliction of duty.

It thus declined to interfere and observed, "Petitioner was the member of guard duty at the residence of a Protectee, therefore, he was required to be more vigilant for the purpose he was deputed and this intoxication may breed indiscipline and may cause accident/mishap at the hands of guard himself who is meant to protect the person for whose security he is deputed as guard."

The Court also suggested ways to curb the growing social media/ mobile intoxication among the Police Department.

"Senior Police Officers may think of incorporating sensitization programmes in police training centers for Constables, Sub Inspectors and other officers and a mechanism or constant supervision of police personnel and their presence on Social Media can be checked and verified when Police Personnel are on duty. 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 observed.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Ashok Kumar Tripathi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Prashant Sharma

Respondent- Additional Advocate General Vivek Khedkar, Government Advocate Sohit Mishra

Click here to read/ download Order