1. Petitioner, a public officer, challenges the disciplinary order imposing punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect following findings of misconduct in a departmental enquiry. (Para 02 , 03 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 123501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J
Sayyid Mehamud Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 1209 of 2024 | CNR No.: MPHC020018492024
Important Points
Suspension does not constitute a punishment; therefore, imposing a penalty after suspension for the same misconduct does not amount to double jeopardy. Furthermore, penalties based on video evidence without procedural irregularities are sustainable.
Subject
Service Law - Departmental Enquiry
Headnote
(A) Departmental Enquiry - Punishment - Evidence - Where the findings of the enquiry are based on video recording of the incident and no procedural irregularity is established, the court will not interfere with the penalty imposed. (Para 7)
(B) Double Jeopardy - Suspension vs Penalty - Suspension is not a punishment; therefore, the subsequent imposition of a penalty for the same misconduct does not amount to double jeopardy. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the imposition of penalty along with prior suspension amounts to double jeopardy and whether the penalty was based on sufficient evidence.
(B) Double Jeopardy - Suspension vs Penalty - Suspension is not a punishment; therefore, the subsequent imposition of a penalty for the same misconduct does not amount to double jeopardy. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the imposition of penalty along with prior suspension amounts to double jeopardy and whether the penalty was based on sufficient evidence.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sachin Parmar
For the Respondents: Rajvardhan Gawde
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sachin Parmar
For the Respondents: Rajvardhan Gawde
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges double jeopardy and false implication; respondent contends suspension is not punishment, asserts procedural compliance, and relies on video evidence substantiating charges of professional misconduct. (Para 04 , 05 , 06 )
3. The court observed that the disciplinary findings were based on substantial evidence, specifically video recordings, and noted the absence of procedural irregularities during the departmental enquiry process. (Para 07 )
4. Administrative actions against public officers do not constitute double jeopardy when a suspension, which is not a punishment, precedes the legitimate imposition of a disciplinary penalty for misconduct. (Para 05 , 07 )
5. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no infirmity in the orders of the disciplinary or appellate authorities as the proceedings were procedurally sound. (Para 07 )
6. Does the imposition of a disciplinary penalty following a period of suspension constitute double jeopardy for a public servant?
No. Suspension is not considered a punishment under service law; therefore, the subsequent imposition of a penalty such as withholding an increment does not amount to double jeopardy. (Para 05 )
7. What is the standard of judicial review for findings arising from a departmental enquiry when video evidence is involved?
Judicial intervention is limited to cases involving procedural irregularity or findings based on no evidence. Where disciplinary findings are supported by specific evidence like video recordings, the court will not substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority. (Para 06 , 07 )
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure-P/4) as well as order dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure-P/6), whereby the petitioner has been punished with a penalty of holding one increment with cumulative effect and the same was affirmed by the appellate Court.
02. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector in respondent/department. In the year 2022 he was posted as Sub- Inspector at Police Station Kotwali, Shajapur. On 22.09.2022 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner thereby inflicting three charges and the petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge sheet on 07/10/2022 and as the same was not found satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Query as well as Presenting Officer in the matter for conducting departmental enquiry and the departmental enquiry was, accordingly, conducted. In the departmental enquiry charge no. 1 & 3 were found partially proved and charge no.2 was found fully proved. Pursuant to which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report.
03. The petitioner submitted his defence brief on 04.02.2023 and ultimately the order dated 24.03.2023 was passed, thereby the penalty of inflicting punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, however, the appellate authority affirmed the order of penalty vide order dated 08.06.2023, thus the present petition.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been made to suffer double jeopardy, as for the same offence the petitioner was suspended and then the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Apart from this it has also been raised in the petition that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the alleged incident and the complainant himself was a person of criminal background. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply, however, the same has not been taken into consideration. The petitioner has received 173 awards which has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.
05. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State in its return has supported the order of penalty. It has been stated in the return that suspension is not a punishment, thus imposition of penalty by withholding one increment with cumulative effect along with the order of suspension which was earlier passed will not amount to double jeopardy. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the State that the nature of allegation against the petitioner is totally unbecoming of a public officer particularly an officer of uniform.
06. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the entire petition does not contain any ground on procedural irregularity. He also points out that the present is not a case where it can be said that the punishment is based on new evidence. He points out that the video of the entire incident was captured, which the petitioner could not establish to be false or incorrect.Thus no case for interference is made out.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
07. A perusal of the order of penalty (Annexure-P/4) would show that the Enquiry Officer has specifically referred to the video recording of the entire incident, based on which three charges of immoral behaviour were imposed against the petitioner. The petitioner has not brought any material to show that the findings were based on no evidence. In fact, explicit reference to the video of the entire incident has been given in the order of imposition of penalty which the petitioner has not even tried to explain in the entire petition. Looking to the nature of misconduct and the fact that there is no procedural irregularity in the entire conduction of
