IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

WRIT PETITION No. 6806 OF 2021

SULTAN SINGH YADAV

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

None for the petitioner.

Shri B.M.Patel- GA for the respondents/State.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESERVED ON: 07/01/2026

ORDER PASSED ON: 12/01/2026

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India

challenging the order, dated 03.08.2018 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent no.4 whereby punishment of bringing him down to the basic of the pay scale was imposed on him on account of certain misconduct found proved in departmental enquiry. The petitioner has also challenged the order, dated 10.04.2019, (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent no.3 and order, dated 26.12.2019, (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.2 whereby his appeal and review application has been decided. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential benefits as a result of setting aside of

aforesaid orders.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Head Constable and was posted at GRP (BG), Gwalior. In connection with an offence of theft committed in running train, a complaint was lodged by one Smt. Nidhi Jain. The

petitioner and three others were found negligent in conducting investigation. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rail), Gwalior. Having found prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner and three others, a common charge sheet was issued to them vide memo, dated 29.09.2014, (Annexure P/4). Against the petitioner a charge regarding negligence in conducting investigation, was levelled. The charge reads as under:

“(1) thvkjih Xokfy;j ( chth ) ds vijk/k dz0 39@2011 /kkjk 379 vkbZihlh dh foospuk ds nkSjku foospuk ds uke ij dsoy [kkukiwfrZ dj fn0 1@1@12 dks [kkRek 4@12 drk dj ?kksj ykijokgh iznf'kZr djuk A”

3. The petitioner submitted reply to charge sheet thereby denying the allegation. The reply since was not found satisfactory, the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jabalpur, was appointed as enquiry officer while Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jabalpur, was appointed as Presenting Officer. The enquiry officer conducted a joint enquiry wherein three prosecution witnesses were examined apart from documentary evidence. The statement of petitioner and other delinquents were also recorded. The enquiry officer then submitted his report on 25.04.2018 wherein the charge levelled against each of the delinquent was found proved.

4. The respondent no.4 being the disciplinary authority, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 18.05.2018 (Annexure P/6) whereby a copy of enquiry report was forwarded with instructions to give his explanation to the findings recorded by enquiry officer. The petitioner gave his explanation. The respondent no.4 thereafter passed impugned order, dated 03.08.2018, (Annexure P/3) whereby punishment of reduction to the basic of the pay scale of the post of Head Constable for a period of one year was imposed on petitioner. Other three delinquents were also found guilty of charge levelled against them and were imposed with different punishments.

5. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment by filing an appeal which was dismissed by order, dated 10.10.2018, passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Bhopal. The petitioner then filed a mercy appeal which came to be partly allowed by respondent no.3 vide order, dated 10.04.2019, (Annexure P/2). The respondent no.3, though affirmed the finding regarding guilt, found that the punishment imposed on petitioner is harsh looking to the gravity of charge and also keeping into account his past record. The punis