This means the case has two sides at this stage. On one side, there are serious allegations from a constable. On the other side, the department says there is an SOP and an inquiry will examine the claims. The public should therefore wait for the inquiry outcome before reaching a final conclusion.

But waiting for the inquiry does not mean ignoring the issue. If the allegations are false or exaggerated, the department must clear the facts and protect institutional discipline. If the allegations are true, action must not stop at junior levels. Responsibility should be fixed where the system failed.

The biggest concern in such cases is the position of the whistleblower. When a constable goes public, he may get public sympathy, but he may also face departmental pressure, isolation, disciplinary scrutiny or personal risk. That is why the question in the title matters: will this help or harm the constable?

In an ideal system, a police constable should not need social media to raise a serious complaint. There should be safe internal channels where personnel can report corruption, harassment, unfair duty allocation or misuse of authority without fear. If such channels are weak, people may go public because they feel no one inside will listen.

At the same time, public allegations can also create complications. A viral video can damage reputations before evidence is examined. It can polarise people. It can turn a service matter into a social media trial. It can also make fair inquiry harder if pressure builds from all sides. This is why the best outcome is not noise, but transparent investigation.

A fair inquiry should check specific points. Were duty rosters generated according to SOP? Were changes recorded properly? Did any unofficial intermediary influence postings? Were any personnel asked for money? Are there bank transfers, cash patterns, WhatsApp messages, phone records, written complaints or witnesses? Were those responsible for supervision aware of irregularities, if any?

The inquiry should also protect the complainant from unfair retaliation until facts are established. At the same time, it should protect honest officers and staff from unverified public targeting. Both protections are necessary for institutional trust.

The larger issue is police morale. The police force works under pressure, long hours, public anger, political scrutiny and difficult field conditions. Thousands of personnel do their duty honestly. But if even a small section of the system is perceived as unfair, the honest majority also suffers. Internal corruption does not only harm public confidence. It harms the force from within.

For lower-rank personnel, fairness in postings and duty allocation is a matter of dignity. A constable should not feel that he must pay to get a manageable duty. He should also not feel that complaining will destroy his career. A disciplined force needs accountability, but it also needs trust from the bottom upward.

This is why transparency in duty allocation can be a practical reform. Digital duty rosters, audit trails, randomised allocation where possible, senior review, complaint tracking and protected reporting channels can reduce suspicion. If every change in duty is recorded and reviewable, both officers and constables are protected.

The public also has a role. People should not convert this issue into online abuse against individuals or the entire police force. The right demand is simple: publish the inquiry findings, take action if wrongdoing is proven, and introduce safeguards so such allegations do not keep returning.

For the constable, the outcome will depend on evidence. If his claims are supported, his decision to speak may expose a serious problem. If the inquiry finds the claims baseless, he may face consequences. Either way, the case should push the department to strengthen internal grievance redressal.

In the end, this viral video is not only about one constable or one police line. It is about whether uniformed services have enough internal honesty to correct problems before they become public scandals. A fair inquiry, transparent findings and protection against both corruption and false allegations are essential.

The message is clear: do not spread rumours, but do not ignore allegations. Let the inquiry test the facts. If there was a collection system, expose it. If there was no such system, clarify it. But whatever the result, the process must restore trust among police personnel and the public.