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, the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector. The Superintendent of Police passed the impugned order dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure P/2), imposing the major punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned major punishment order could not have been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Datia, as the competent authority to impose such a major penalty is the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). Thereafter, appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority but the same was not considered by the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that the said major penalty has been imposed by the Superintendent of Police, whereas as per the Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police is competent to impose only minor punishments up to the rank of Inspector. It is also submitted that the appointing authority of petitioner is the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), whereas the impugned order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, who is not competent to impose such punishment. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the order dated 16.09.2020 in W.P. No. 7662/2018 (Ashok Sharma v. State of M.P. and others) and order dated 01.11.2011 in W.P. No. 2882/2007 (Nandkishore v. State of M.P.) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that after conducting the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was punished by the impugned order. It is also submitted that the scope of judicial review in departmental inquiry proceedings is very limited and the High Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. It is further submitted that the impugned punishment order relates only to withholding of one annual increment, which does not constitute a major punishment; however, the word “cumulative” has been wrongly mentioned in the impugned order dated 23.06.2011. learned Government Advocate supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector, and a major punishment has been imposed by the Superintendent of Police, who is not the competent authority to impose a major punishment up to the rank of Inspector. This controversy has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Sharma (supra), the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference and convenience:

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dt.30.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar as well as the order passed by the appellate authority on 15.02.2018 (Annexure P/1), whereby the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dt.30.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar is without authority, as he is not having jurisdiction to impose the penalty of stoppage of one increment wit