'Social Media Intoxication' Among Police : MP High Court Says Use Of Mobile/Social Media By Police Guards On Duty Must Be Curbed

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 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 court said that Senior Police Officers may think of incorporating sensitization programmes in police training centres 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 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.

"An employee that too in police department if performs duties while in influence of liquor or in inebriated condition, is a recipe for law and order problem or dereliction of duty where many things are at stake. 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," the court said.

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,

"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".

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;

"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".

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