IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's power and clarified that outcomes of mercy petitions are not subject to judicial review.

ORDER :

1. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed with costs by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction quashing the order Annexure P/1 dated 28.2.2002 and passed by Respondent No.3 S.P. Vidisha and the order of Appellate Authority Annexure P/2 dated 24.10.2002 confirming the order of punishment and the order Annexure P/3 dated 10.9.2007 and the petitioner may kindly be directed to be reinstated back in service with all consequential monetary benefits and the seniority on the post of Head Constable and further the petitioner is entitled for back wages as during this period he has not been gainfully employed anywhere and the petitioner is entitled for further direction to promote the petitioner on the post of ASI for which he had already qualified in the departmental examination and also undergone the requisite training and any other relief in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents which this Hon'ble Court deem fit, kindly be awarded."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of constable on 17.2.1981. Subsequently, after qualifying the departmental examination petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Constable on 12.5.1987 which was issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). Thereafter, at the relevant point of time, when petitioner was posted at Police Station Anandpur, Tehsil Lateri, Distrct Vidisha, one complaint was made against petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Vidisha directed to Additional Superintendent of Police to hold fact finding inquiry/ preliminary inquiry against petitioner. Thereafter, charge sheet was issued against petitioner (Annexure P/5). Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet and thereafter, Inquiry Officer has been appointed and the statement of witnesses were recorded and Inquiry Officer has found the charges proved and submitted the inquiry report before Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to petitioner. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police passed an order of dismissal against petitioner, against which petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police (I.G.), which was rejected by order dated 24.10.2002. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a mercy appeal before the State Government, which was partly allowed by modifying the earlier punishment and converting the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Police is not the appointing authority of petitioner. The appointing authority of petitioner is the DIG, who issued the appointment order. The power to inflict a major punishment vests with the appointing authority and the Superintendent of Police has no power to issue the order of dismissal. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon judgment/order dated 25.6.2025 passed in W.P. No. 4739/2008 [Harisingh Parmar v. State of M.P. and others] wherein this Court has entertained the writ petition even after punishment has been modified in mercy appeal. He pressed into service order passed in Harisingh Parmar (supra), relevant para of which is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:

“3. After issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has duly submitted his reply and denied all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority being dissatisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner directed for departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and examined number of witnesses and finally submitted inquiry report to the respondent/SP, Gwalior who, after giving showcause notice alongwith the inquiry report to the petition