SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.
Sukhdev Singh Chouhan - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13800 Of 2023
Decided On : 25-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri MPS Raguvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri RBS Tomar- Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri K.K.Prajapati- GA

The court emphasized that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's defense of procedural compliance and that the alleged misconduct was not substantiated by evidence.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 52-A - Disciplinary action - The petitioner was penalized for negligence in handling evidence in a narcotics case - The court found that the disciplinary authority disregarded the petitioner's defense and failed to establish misconduct - The petitioner alleged procedural compliance under Section 52-A - The court determined there was no misconduct as the petitioner had not been the designated investigating officer. (Paras 6, 8, 18, 22)

(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, focusing on whether due process was followed and if the conclusions were supported by evidence. (Paras 12, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a police officer, faced charges for delays in sending seized narcotics to the forensic lab and procedural violations concerning evidence handling, with penalties imposed by the disciplinary authority and later upheld by the appellate authority.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not substantiate misconduct and ruled to set aside the disciplinary orders.

Issues: Whether the petitioner committed misconduct regarding procedural delays and authority in handling evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the petitioner did not commit misconduct as he followed procedural directives and that no substantial evidence contradicted his defenses.

Result: Petition allowed, disciplinary orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments on behalf of the petitioner (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's considerations on legal standards in disciplinary matters (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court’s analysis of allegations and petitioner’s defense (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. final judgment and directive on restoring petitioner’s rights (Para 22 , 23)

ORDER :

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 15/6/2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the disciplinary authority, whereby, punishment of reduction of one increment in the pay-scale for a period of one year with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner on account of misconduct found proved in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 20/3/2023 (Annexure P/2), whereby, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Police Department on 30/4/1991. He was granted promotion on the post of Head Constable and Sub Inspector in the year 2005 & 2011 respectively. Lastly, he was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector on 28/4/2015 and was posted at Police Station Umari, District Bhind. One Ravindra Singh Gurjar was the Inspector and was posted as Station House Officer of Police Station Umari,District Bhind.

3. On 20/2/2020, on receiving information, the petitioner intercepted a Swift Car near village Pandari which was going towards Etawah, (U.P.). Two persons, sitting in the car, tried to run away but were caught by the police team. The petitioner seized about 4.8 kgs of Ganja from accused Hemant Gurjar and about 3.9 kgs Ganja from accused Gyan Singh Banjara. The petitioner, being the head of the police team, seized and sealed the contraband and registered Crime No.46/2020 against both the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 8 /20 (Kha) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity hereinafter shall be referred to as “NDPS Act”).

4. From the records, it is gathered that vide order dated 24/2/2020, the investigation of the case was handed over to Shri Sanjeev Nayan Sharma, Inspector posted at P.S. Raun, District Bhind. It is alleged against Shri Ravindra Singh Gurjar that despite transfer of Investigation to Shri Sharma, the case diary was not handed over to him. Against the petitioner, it is alleged that even though the contraband was seized on 20/2/2020, the same was not immediately sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and after lapse of about 20 days, the same was produced before the Nayab Tehsildar, Umari Circle allegedly in compliance of provisions of Section 52 -A of the NDPS Act. It is also alleged against the petitioner that before the Nayab Tehsildar, cloth containing sealed contraband was opened and samples were prepared and contraband were again sealed.

5. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by DSP, Headquarter, Bhind and he submitted his report on 29/6/2020 (Annexure R/1) against the petitioner. He found that he was negligent in not sending the contraband immediately to the FSL and violating the instructions issued by the Central Govt., he produced the contraband before the Naib Tehsildar, where, the seal of the cloth containing contraband was brock opened and samples were prepared. It was further found that the investigation was already handedover to Shri Sanjeev Nayan Sharma and therefore, the act of petitioner taking the contraband to Naib Tehsildar was illegal and unauthorized. Based upon the preliminary enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14/8/2020 (Annexure P/4) to which the petitioner submitted reply on 20/9/2020 (Annexure P/5). Petitioner denied the allegations leveled against him. The explanation of the petitioner since was not found satisfactory, a common charge-sheet was issued to him as also to Shri Ravindra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top