IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI WRIT PETITION No.20457 of 2022 SANTOSH SEN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri L.C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Raghav Shrivastava – Government Advocate for the respondents/State Reserved on : 20/11/2025 Post on : 04/12/2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking followings reliefs:-

“a) To call for the relevant records of the case from the respondents;

b) To quash the impugned punishment order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/13) issued by Respondent No. 4, the consequential appellate order dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure P/15) issued by Respondent No. 2, and the impugned revisional order dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure P/18) issued by Respondent No. 5, by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order;

c) To command the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to grant all consequential and monetary benefits, including arrears of salary and allowances along with interest @ 12% per annum, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order;

d) To allow this petition with costs;

e) To pass any other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Home Guard Sainik No.118 and successfully completed his basic training between 01/09/1998 and 15/10/1998. Since then, he has been serving sincerely, and several commendation certificates were issued to him from time to time. Further the petitioner was posted at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Indore, Respondent No.2, by order dated 17/09/2021, directed the CSP, Pardeshipura, to conduct a preliminary enquiry into allegations regarding demand of illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from chain snatchers detained in the police station and regarding circulation of a related video on social media.

3. Pursuant to the said direction, the CSP obtained a report from the SHO, Police Station Tilak Nagar, and thereafter conducted a preliminary enquiry. The petitioner’s statement was recorded, but the statements of other concerned persons were taken behind his back and without permitting him to cross-examine them. On 22/09/2021, the CSP submitted his enquiry report recommending stern disciplinary action against the petitioner, however, this report was never supplied to the petitioner. Based on this preliminary enquiry, Respondent No.2, vide letter dated 04/10/2021, directed Respondent No.4 to take strict disciplinary action.

4. Thereafter, without issuing any charge-sheet, without supplying the preliminary enquiry report, and without appointing a presenting officer, Respondent No. 4 directly appointed an enquiry officer, who combined the roles of enquiry officer and presenting officer. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation regarding alleged physical assault on the accused persons and making their video. Only the petitioner’s statement was taken on 28/10/2021, and no witnesses were examined in his presence. Subsequently, without providing a copy of the enquiry report or affording opportunity for cross-examination, Respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice dated 10/11/2021 proposing stern disciplinary action. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and also demanded relevant documents. The CD of the alleged video was never provided during the enquiry and was supplied later only under the RTI Act on 14/02/2022.

5. Ultimately, Respondent No.4 passed the impugned punishment order dated 22/11/2021, removing the petitioner from service under Rule 25 of the M.P. Home Guard Rules, 2016, without framing specific charges, without holding a proper departmental enquiry, and solely relying on the preliminary enquiry. The statutory appeal filed