In an appeal, by a police constable posted on guard duty, filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, a Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav considered the record of the appellant and found him to be habitual in abandoning his duties. Hence, the Court affirmed the order passed by the Writ Court.
The instant matter is concerned with the reinstatement of the appellant, who had been compulsorily retired by the respondents. In a charge sheet issued to the appellant, it was alleged that on 04-08-2007 at 6 AM, when he was posted in guard duty, he was found sleeping under the influence of alcohol.
The charge was proved in the departmental inquiry, and by order dated 31-12-2007, the Commandant, 5th Battalion, SAF, Morena, punished the appellant with compulsory retirement. The appellant was present before the Court after facing dismissals from the Deputy Inspector General of the SAF, the Director General of Police, Bhopal, and the Writ Court.
The appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and contended that the examining doctor had concluded that the appellant consumed alcohol solely based on a smell test, without any medical exam or breath test. It was also contended that the Writ Court had dismissed the petition without considering the material aspects of the matter.
The Court took note of all impugned orders and stated that if an employee in the police department performs duties under the influence of liquor, it is a recipe for a law-and-order problem where many things are at stake.
The Court stated that the scope of departmental inquiry had been well settled by the Supreme Court in Kanwar Amninder Singh v. Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3338, State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heem Singh (2021) 12 SCC 569, State of Karnataka & Anr. v. N. Gangraj (2020) 3 SCC 423, and State Bank of India & Anr. v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212. Further, the Court noted that the appellant had also been punished earlier for remaining absent on duty and found the appellant’s conduct to be of importance, as he appeared to be habitual in dereliction of duty.
The Court said that since the appellant was a member of the guard duty at the residence of a Protectee, he was required to be more vigilant for the purpose for which he was deputed. The Court found no basis for interference and affirmed the order passed by the Writ Court, dismissing the present appeal.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the senior police officers of the Police Department and stated that another form of intoxication prevalent in the department is the use of mobile and social media, which creates indiscipline and casualness in duties.
While providing ‘food for thought’, the Court advised senior police officers to consider incorporating sensitization programs into police training centres or to constantly monitor the social media presence of police personnel. The Court also advised them to discuss and frame a mechanism in accordance with their Rules, Regulations, and Guidelines.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Prashant Sharma
For Respondent – AAG/Sr. Adv Vivek Khedkar, Adv Sohit Mishra
