Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6816
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Jain, J
Yashwant Goyal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17520 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Shri Jalaj Kumar Dwivedi
For the Respondents: Shri Siddharth Shukla
Charges against an officer must directly reflect their actions; vague or unsupported claims cannot sustain disciplinary action.
Headnote:(A) Police Regulation - Clause 634 - Challenging departmental charge-sheet alleging incorrect daily diary entry by the Inspector. The petitioner charged improperly based on a false entry he did not make. Court held charges against him vague and unsupported by evidence, quashing the charge-sheet. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Departmental Proceedings - Proper accountability and supervision - Emphasis on clear charges and evidence for disciplinary actions. The court found that the allegations did not substantiate misconduct as described. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged charge-sheet for allegedly allowing entry of information in daily diaries which he claimed was made by another individual and was incorrect.
Findings of Court:
Court observed that the petitioner had no direct involvement in the charge described and charges were inconsistent with the imputation therein.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had engaged in misconduct as per the charge-sheet issued against him.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that the charge against the petitioner was fundamentally flawed and unsupported, as the person who made the incorrect entry was clearly identified, affirming that charges must accurately reflect specific actions attributed to individuals involved.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging validity of a departmental charge-sheet. (Para 1) |
| 2. nature of allegations against the petitioner (Para 2) |
| 3. argument regarding the quashing of charges against associated officers (Para 4) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 18 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 17520 of 2024 YASHWANT GOYAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Prakash Upadhyay - Senior Advocate with Shri Jalaj Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Siddharth Shukla - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet Annexure P-1 whereby the petitioner who was then posted as Inspector and Station House Officer of Police Station, Amarpatan, District Satna has been charged with the allegation that on 10.05.2016 in daily diary entry no.4 he entered or got entered an information which he knew to be incorrect and, therefore, violated Clause 634 of Police Regulation .
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that an FIR at Crime No.139/2016 was registered in the Police Station under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and one motorcycle was seized on 01.04.2016 which was directed to be released by the JMFC on 09.05.2016 and the order was received by the petitioner being Station House Officer on 09.05.2016. He made a note to the Head Constable-Ministerial ("HCM") to comply with Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR the said order and on 10.05.2016 in the daily diary at entry No.4, at 9:55 a.m. a false entry of giving the said motorcycle in custody of the owner was recorded. The motorcycle was actually not released on that date and the Head Constable and Investigating Officer of the theft case namely Sub-Inspector Vijay Tripathi were negotiating with the vehicle owner to give a bribe of Rs.3,000/- for getting motorcycle released. A trap was laid in which said two persons were trapped and they were put to trial by the Lokayukt.
3. It is further undisputed position that both these trapped persons i.e. SI Vijay Tripathi and HCM Dadan Singh Parihar have been acquitted in the trial of trap case. The HCM Dadan Singh Parihar and the Investigating Officer of the case SI Vijat Tripathi were also charge-sheeted with two charges; the first charge being of making wrong entry no.4 in the daily diary on 10.05.2016 in violation of the instructions of the SHO and second charge being that he violated the instructions of superior officers and tarnished the image of police.
4. The coordinate Bench heard the petition for quashing the Departmental charge-sheet issued to HCM Dadan Singh Parihar. Instead of quashing the charges, coordinate Bench held that though the charges are vague but directed the respondents to amend the charge-sheet. Same order was also passed in the case of Vijay Tripathi who was also one of the two trapped police personnel in the Lokayukt case and order was passed in W.P. No.12846/2016. However, in W.A. No.1716/2023 the Division Bench quashed the chargesheet and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, the police could only issue a fresh Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR charge-sheet.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner by taking this court through the charges against HCM Dadan Singh Parihar has argued that the charges against Dadan Singh Parihar were of writing the questioned entry in the daily diary and even in the imputation of charges to the charge-sheet supplied to the petitioner it is clearly mentioned that the questioned entry in the daily diary was made by HCM Dadan Singh Parihar. The aforesaid has been clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet but still the charges have been levelled against the petitioner of facilitating or making the entry. It is argued that once the charges against Dadan Singh Parihar have been quashed, there is no utility in continuing with the charges and charge-sheet against the petit
