Back
"Mercy Isn't a Right": MP High Court Slams Door on Police Officer's Reinstatement Bid
In a firm rebuff to claims of further leniency, the dismissed a by former head constable Babulal Deewan , ruling that orders arising from mercy petitions lie beyond the pale of . Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat , in his order dated , underscored that once the state extends mercy by softening a dismissal to compulsory retirement, the delinquent employee must accept it without demanding more through the courts.
A Career in the Crosshairs: From Promotion to Punishment
Babulal Deewan joined the as a constable on , and rose to head constable on , after clearing departmental exams issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Posted at Lateri police station in Vidisha district, trouble brewed with a complaint leading to a preliminary inquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police. A chargesheet followed (Annexure P/5), and an inquiry proved the charges. On , Superintendent of Police Vidisha dismissed him—a decision upheld on appeal by the Inspector General on . Deewan's to the state government bore fruit on , converting dismissal to compulsory retirement, a nod to his long service despite the gravity of his "serious misconduct."
Undeterred, Deewan filed No. 1336 of 2008 under , seeking quashing of all orders, reinstatement with back wages, seniority, and promotion to Assistant Sub-Inspector—a post for which he claimed qualification and training.
Petitioner's Pushback: Jurisdiction and Excess Punished?
argued the Superintendent of Police lacked authority, as the DIG was the true appointing authority per the promotion order. He invoked Harisingh Parmar v. State of M.P. (WP 4739/2008, ), where the court entertained a similar writ post-mercy modification, and Ramesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh ( , ), stressing judicial intervention if punishment " " or defies reason. Deewan claimed no gainful employment post-dismissal entitled him to full relief.
State's Stand: Rules Upheld, Mercy Extended
countered with the , Schedule under Rules 7 & 19, listing Superintendent of Police as competent appointing/disciplinary authority for head constables. The state highlighted its "lenient view" in the mercy order (Annexure P/3), modifying punishment despite no statutory right to mercy petitions under police regulations.
Parsing Precedents: Where Mercy Trumps Review
Justice Bahrawat dissected the cited cases.
Harisingh Parmar
was distinguished as overlooking
H.S. Bhargava v.
(2005 (4) MPLJ 288), which held mercy orders non-reviewable:
"Mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end."
Ramesh Kumar Sahu
didn't address mercy-specific challenges. The court clarified no statutory basis for mercy petitions exists, yet the state granted it—a "free gift" of grace, per Blackstone's amiable executive power. Deewan, receiving pension under the modified order since 2007, had accepted its benefits.
The ruling drew on the absence of any query response proving a mercy right, reinforcing that delinquents can't demand judicial second-guessing of executive compassion.
Key Observations
"There is no averment in the petition that the petitioner has any right to file a... Once the petitioner submitted abefore the State Government and the punishment was modified... petitioner ought to remain satisfied with the relief."
"An order passed in ais not ordinarily subject to, as mercy is not a matter of legal right. It begins where legal rights end."
"Mercy, in the legal concept, means imposition of a lesser punishment than the law allows... Mercy is best viewed as a free gift; an act of grace, love or compassion that is beyond the claims of right, duty and obligation."
"Vide order dated 10.09.2007... the State Government, adopting a lenient view, converted the order of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. Therefore, petitioner does not have any fundamental right to challenge the order."
Final Verdict: Petition Tossed, Leniency Stands
The court dismissed the petition outright:
"this Court is of the considered opinion that when State Government itself has shown mercy to the delinquent by imposing a lesser punishment, the present petition... is liable to be... dismissed."
This decision cements that mercy modifications close the door to writ challenges, protecting executive discretion in service matters. Future disciplinary cases may see employees treading carefully post-mercy, lest courts echo: no more demands on grace. As noted in contemporary reports, it reaffirms a delinquent's lack of entitlement even to mercy consideration, let alone its judicial tweaking.
