US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Siddharth Priyadarshan – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT nd ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3658 of 2012 SIDDHARTH PRIYADARSHAN Versus STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-
“(i) That, the impugned order dt. 20-12-2011 Annexure P/1 be set aside. (ii) That, the impugned order dt. 23-06-2011 Annexure P/2 be set aside.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time, th
The Superintendent of Police can impose penalties on Sub-Inspectors, but failure to follow due process, including issuing a second show-cause notice, breaches natural justice and invalidates the disc....
The Superintendent of Police is the competent Disciplinary Authority for the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, and the punishment imposed was upheld as not excessive or disproportionate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 4 and Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, regardin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary orders must comply with the principles and provisions of the applicable rules and regulations, including the requirement for vali....
The Superintendent of Police is authorized to issue charge-sheets and initiate disciplinary proceedings against subordinate officers, and such proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural jus....
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited; High Courts cannot interfere with findings or penalties unless they are manifestly illegal or shockingly disproportionate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the provisions of the relevant disciplinary rules and acts, and the penalty imposed must be commensura....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article