Madhya Pradesh High Court
Siddharth Priyadarshan vs State Of M.P on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4133
1 WP. No.3658 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 2nd 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 2/2/2026 7:01:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4133 2 WP. No.3658 of 2012 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 2/2/2026 7:01:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4133 3 WP. No.3658 of 2012
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 with cumulative effect. He has heavily relied upon the judgment passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Anil Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others - 2008 (1) MPHT 54 (CG) and G.R.Gaharwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh - 2009 (3) MPHT 43 (CG) and submitted that the case of the petitioner is exactly identical with the aforesaid cases. It is also submitted that against the order dt.30.9.2017 (Annexure P/2), an appeal was preferred before the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior, which was rejected vide order dt.15.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) affirming the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar. On Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 2/2/2026 7:01:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4133 4 WP. No.3658 of 2012 these grounds, he seeks quashment of the impugned orders.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State submitted that the orders passed by the respondents authorities are just and proper and do not call for any interference in the present petition. He has further drawn attention of this court to the Regulation 221 of the Police Regulations and submitted that Superintendent of Police is empowered to impose punishment of reduction of salary and accordingly, he has exercised the power and imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. On these grounds, learned Panel Lawyer prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner is working as Sub Inspector and discharging his duties with utmost devotion and sincerity. The petitioner was entrusted with the investigation of case No.107/2015 for the offence under Sections 394 and 302 of IPC, wherein the petitioner carried out the investigation fairly with full devotion. The petitioner was surprised when he received a show cause notice regarding dereliction of duties and subsequently faced with the order of departmental enquiry. Reply to the show cause notice was filed. In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Accordingly, Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar exercising the power under Regulation 221 imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Effect and impact of amended Regulations 214 and 221 of the Police Regulations was subject matter in the case of Anil Tiwari (supra), in which High Court of Chhattisgarh held that imposition of penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and as such can not be imposed Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 2/2/2026 7:01:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4133 5 WP. No.3658 of 2012 by the Superintendent of Police. In the aforesaid judgment, reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court has been placed.
In view of the identical issue decided by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the impugned order (Annexure P/2) appears to be without jurisdiction and unsustainable. Superintendent of Police was having no authority to pass the aforesaid order.
Accordingly, petition is allowed and the impugned order dt.30.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Superintendent of Police Ashok Nagar and the order dt.15.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Dy.
Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior are hereby quashed.
6. Similarly, another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nandkishore and others (supra) has also held as under:
This Court has gone through the statutory provisions as contained in M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the schedule appended to the aforesaid Rules for the Home Department (Police) reflects for imposing the major punishment in respect of Sub Inspector, the authority competent is the Director General of Police. Not only this, the aforesaid point has already been considered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Anil Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and the similar view has been taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court. It is pertinent to note that the police regulations, which are applicable in the State of M. P. are the same regulations, which are applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Chhattisgarh High Court in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 has held under :--
15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it is held that subsequent orders, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, passed by the Inspector General of Police and passed by the State Government do not cure the initial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 2/2/2026 7:01:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4133 6 WP. No.3658 of 2012 defect, i.e., imposition of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect by an incompetent Authority.
As a result and for the discussions made hereinabove, this petition is allowed and the order dated 30-5-2001 (P-
1), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh and the order dated 26-2-2003 (P-2), passed by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs, through the Assistant Director General of Home Affairs, through the Assistant Director General of Police (Discipline/Complaint), Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits flowing from quashing of the impugned orders. No order as to costs.
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Chhattisgarh High Court and keeping in view the fact that the impugned order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, the same is, accordingly, quashed. It is also pertinent to note that the letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 4-4-2006 is also of no help to the respondents. The aforesaid letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police has categorically directed the Superintendent of Police to take an appropriate action keeping in view his jurisdiction and, therefore, by virtue of the letter dated 4-4-2006, it cannot be presumed that the powers have been delegated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police to the Superintendent of Police for imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect upon Sub Inspector (Police).
Resultantly, the order dated 31-5-2006 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 27-1-2007 passed by the appellate authority are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for grant of all the consequential benefits. However, a liberty is granted to the respondents to take an appropriate step in accordance with law.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the aforesaid pronouncement, the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to impose a major punishment upon the petitioner, who was a Sub-Inspector at the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 2/2/2026 7:01:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4133 7 WP. No.3658 of 2012 relevant point of time. The argument of the learned Government Advocate that only a minor penalty has been imposed, as one annual increment was withheld without cumulative effect, is contrary to the record. In the reply filed by the learned Government Advocate, it is clearly stated that the increment was withheld with cumulative effect, as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the return. Moreover, the impugned punishment order itself specifically mentions the word "cumulative." Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that only a minor punishment has been imposed is not sustainable.
8. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of and the impugned punishment order dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure P/2) and appeal rejection order dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure P/1) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge Ahmad Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 2/2/2026 7:01:54 PM