Back
Cop's Suspension After Busting Gambling at IAS Farmhouse? HC Calls It Vindictive, Orders Reinstatement
In a bold stand against administrative overreach, the has quashed the suspension of Sub-Inspector Lokendra Singh Hihore , who led a daring nighttime raid on a farmhouse linked to a serving IAS officer. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai , in a order, labeled the move "," warning it could paralyze law enforcement.
The ruling, under , reinstates Hihore—a decorated 2007-batch officer with over 300 awards—to his post as SHO of Manpur police station, Indore (Gramin), criticizing the state's knee-jerk response as a "" to his refusal to shield the powerful.
Night Raid Exposes High-Stakes Gamble—and Backlash
On the night of , Hihore was on routine patrol when a tip-off led him to 'Kothi Niwas' farmhouse in Awalipura village. Acting swiftly, he obtained a search warrant, rallied a team with independent witnesses, and busted a large-scale illegal gambling operation. Over 20 people were caught, with cash worth ₹13.67 lakh, mobiles, and vehicles—including a Swift Dzire and Hyundai—seized.
Media reports, including PTI, confirmed the farmhouse belonged to a woman IAS officer serving as Managing Director of . Eighteen were arrested; six fled. But success bred trouble: Hihore faced "immense pressure" to skip the FIR or falsify the site to hide the owner's identity. He stood firm, registering the FIR accurately—only to be suspended by the Indore (Gramin) SP hours later.
Petitioner's Stand: Shielding the Honest from the High-Handed
Hihore argued the suspension violated , issued without pending inquiry or criminal case, purely as malice for busting an influential racket. No specific violation was cited; the order absurdly suspended an ASI on medical leave. He highlighted discrimination: Simrol PS SHO faced no action for a similar bust. Appeals were "illusory" amid retaliatory transfers post-writ filing.
State's Defense: Negligence or Just Routine?
The state countered with an efficacious appeal remedy under CCA Rules, citing a 2022 MPLJ case. They claimed Hihore neglected crime meetings' directives on intelligence, justifying suspension pending departmental probe (Annexure R/1). Prior 2013 censure was noted, denying malice as "bald" claims. No , they urged non-interference in admin prerogatives.
Judicial Scalpel Cuts Through Contradictions
Justice Pillai dissected precedents like —suspension demands mind-application to gravity, not routine—and , barring arbitrary vindictiveness absent strong case for major penalty.
The order's vague "failure to gather intelligence" was debunked: Hihore's raid was intelligence-driven. No moral turpitude; rewarding duty shocks conscience. Unrebutted pressure claims, ASI goof-up, and "pick-and-choose" policy screamed . Preliminary inquiry was contradictory, prejudiced by old cases. Alternative remedy bypassed as futile amid haste.
Drawing from on "," the court stressed review for process flaws, intervening where illogical or conscience-shocking.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Penalizing a law enforcement officer for the prompt, efficient, and successful execution of his statutory duties is antithetical to the very concept of ' ' and of this Court."
"The immediate issuance of the suspension order on the very next morning... undeniably exposes a ' ' policy driven by a vindictive mindset rather than administrative exigency."
"If these types of stereotype orders of suspension, like in the present case, are permitted to continue, then no officer would even dare to raid any premises due to fear of suspension."
"It is striking and surprising that such a serious allegation of malice levelled against the respondents has neither been specifically nor categorically rebutted by them in their reply. This evasive silence further affirms..."
Victory for Integrity: Quashed, But Probe Door Open
The writ succeeded:
"The impugned suspension order dated
... is hereby quashed and set aside. Furthermore, all consequential actions arising out of only the said suspension are also hereby quashed."
Respondents can pursue lawful inquiry.
This safeguards whistleblower cops from retaliation, signaling courts won't tolerate "vindictive misuse" shielding the elite. As media echoed, it prevents a "gross miscarriage of justice," bolstering police morale against influential pressures.
