Madhya Pradesh High Court
Timesh Chhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 12 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5765
1 WP. No. 5617 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5617 of 2015
TIMESH CHHARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Ashi Gupta - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Ms. Vrinda Dixit - Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;
(ii) That, the final recommendation dated 30.08.2014 Annexure P/1 issued by the respondent no.4 may kindly be directed to be set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed not to issue any charge-
sheet on the basis of the recommendation made by the respondent no.4 against the petitioner.
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5765 2 WP. No. 5617 of 2015
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Inspector. In the month of April, 2014 petitioner was posted as S.H.O. Police Station Tendua, District Shivpuri. It is submitted that one Smt. Basanti Bai Dhakad lodged a complaint that one Brij Mohan Sharma came to her house, abused, assaulted and threatened her to kill. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR at Crime No.44/2012 under Sections 452, 323, 506-B, 294 of IPC was registered against accused person on 17.4.2012. It is submitted that A.S.I. Rajendra Sharma conducted investigation and during investigation the offence was found to be prima facie proved against accused-Brij Mohan Sharma and on 17.4.2012 he was arrested and at the time of arrest the accused had some simple injuries on his body which was mentioned by A.S.I. Rajendra Sharma in his arrest memo. It is further submitted that A.S.I. Rajendra Sharma also made entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha No.469 dated 17.4.2012 at 12:45 PM that he had gone for investigation to Chilavad and after arrest of the accused the entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha No.471 at 04:00 PM was made and in which specifically mentioned that the accused sustained some injuries in the quarrel of which matter has been mentioned in the arrest memo and therefore MLC was conducted on the same date i.e. 17.4.2012. There was specific entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha No.473 at 04:30 PM that Constable Girja Shankar and Dharmendra Jaat had gone to learned J.M.F.C Court who instructed them to first conduct the medical examination of the accused. Accused Brij Mohan Sharma used his political influence and tried to lodge a cross-complaint/case against Smt. Basanti Bai but petitioner after investigation as per law thought it proper not to register the cross- case against Smt. Basanti Bai and being annoyed by the same Brij Mohan Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5765 3 WP. No. 5617 of 2015 Sharma under political influence lodged a false complaint against petitioner before the D.I.G. Gwalior Range Gwalior and the DIG enquired the matter and issued a show cause notice to petitioner and taking into consideration all the facts, grounds and evidence the DIG imposed punishment of cost of Rs.2,000/- against petitioner by order dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P/2). Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that story/complaint of the Brij Mohan Sharma was not proved and the DIG imposed the cost on petitioner on the ground of technical mistake only. Respondent No.4 thereafter issued notice to petitioner and petitioner gave reply of the said notice, however, without considering the factual and documentary evidence respondent No.4 issued the impugned order/recommendation dated 30.08.2014, thereby ordering an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be given as interim compensation to complainant and extending liberty to respondents No.1 & 2/State to recover the same from petitioner and further directed respondents No.1 and 2 to initiate departmental enquiry against petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that respondent No.4 did not consider the reply submitted by petitioner and not consider the documentary evidence submitted by him and without giving any opportunity of hearing, after submitting reply by petitioner, the impugned order/final recommendation has been passed against petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that respondent No.4 did even not give an opportunity to petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses in support of complaint of complainant and that the impugned recommendation has been made violating the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that during enquiry conducted by Mr. Sanjay Dubey, Investigating Member of Investigating team of respondent no.4, some instructions were taken by him and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5765 4 WP. No. 5617 of 2015 on the instructions one Head Constable Munnalal Sharma and one Head Constable Suresh Sharma submitted their statements that assault was committed because those employees were in relation to Brij Mohan Sharma and that is why they gave statements against petitioner. This fact was neither examined nor considered by respondent no.4 at the time of recommendation and issuing the impugned order/recommendation. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Head Constable Ramanand Sharma and A.S.I. Rajendra Sharma who were present at the time of incident and were eye-witness of the incident did not give any statement against petitioner. It is further submitted that on the same set of allegations/incident, the DIG, Gwalior Range, Gwalior, enquired the matter, issued a show cause notice to petitioner and taking into consideration all the evidence and after conducting enquiry passed the order Annexure P/2 dated 14.9.2012 imposing punishment of cost of Rs.2,000/- against petitioner. Respondent No.4 did not consider aforesaid order dated 14.09.2012 at the time of issuance of impugned order/recommendation dated 30.08.2014.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/State and respondent No.5 opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner by supporting the order impugned. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has misused his post while being posted as SHO, Police Station Tendua and the impugned recommendation has rightly been made by respondent No.4 to take action against petitioner as per the verdict mentioned therein. On these grounds, learned counsel pray for dismissal of present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of record, it is gathered that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5765 5 WP. No. 5617 of 2015 Inspector. In the month of April, 2014 petitioner was posted as S.H.O. Police Station Tendua, District Shivpuri. One Smt. Basanti Bai Dhakad lodged a complaint that one Brij Mohan Sharma came to her house, abused, assaulted and threatened her to kill. On the basis of complaint, an FIR at Crime No.44/2012 under sections 452, 323, 506-B, 294 of IPC has been registered against the accused person on 17.4.2012. A.S.I. Rajendra Sharma conducted investigation and during investigation the offence has been found prima facie proved against accused-Brij Mohan Sharma and on 17.4.2012 he was arrested and at the time of arrest the accused had some simple injuries on his body which was mentioned by A.S.I. Rajendra Sharma in his arrest memo. A.S.I. Rajendra Sharma also made entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha No.469 dated 17.4.2012 at 12:45 PM that he had gone for investigation to Chilavad and after arrest of the accused the entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha No.471 at 04:00 PM was made and in which specifically mentioned that the accused sustained some injuries in the quarrel of which matter has been mentioned in the arrest memo and therefore MLC was conducted on the same date i.e. 17.4.2012. There was specific entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha No.473 at 04:30 PM that Constable Girja Shankar and Dharmendra Jaat had gone to learned J.M.F.C Court who instructed them to first conduct the medical examination of the accused. Accused Brij Mohan Sharma used his political influence and tried to lodge a cross-complaint/case against Smt. Basanti Bai but petitioner after investigation as per law thought it proper not to register the cross- case against Smt. Basanti Bai and being annoyed by the same Brij Mohan Sharma under political influence lodged a false complaint against petitioner before the D.I.G. Gwalior Range Gwalior and the DIG enquired the matter and issued a show cause notice to petitioner and taking into consideration all the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5765 6 WP. No. 5617 of 2015 facts, grounds and evidence the DIG imposed punishment of cost of Rs.2,000/- against petitioner by order dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P/2). Furthermore, story/complaint of the Brij Mohan Sharma was not proved and the DIG imposed the cost on petitioner on the ground of technical mistake only. Respondent No.4 thereafter issued notice to petitioner and petitioner gave reply of the said notice, however, without considering the factual and documentary evidence respondent No.4 issued the impugned order/recommendation dated 30.08.2014, thereby ordering an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be given as interim compensation to complainant and extending liberty to respondents No.1 & 2/State to recover the same from petitioner and further directed respondents No.1 and 2 to initiate departmental enquiry against petitioner. Respondent No.4 did not consider the reply submitted by petitioner and not consider the documentary evidence submitted by him and without giving any opportunity of hearing, after submitting reply by petitioner, the impugned order/final recommendation has been passed against petitioner. Respondent No.4 did even not give an opportunity to petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses in support of complaint of complainant and that the impugned recommendation has been made violating the principle of natural justice. During the enquiry conducted by Mr. Sanjay Dubey, Investigating Member of Investigating team of respondent no.4, some instructions were taken by Sanjay Dubey and on the instructions one Head Constable Munnalal Sharma and one Head Constable Suresh Sharma submitted their statements that assault was committed because those employees were in relation to Brij Mohan Sharma and that is why they gave statements against petitioner. This fact was neither examined nor considered by respondent no.4 at the time of recommendation and issuing the impugned order. Head Constable Ramanand Sharma and A.S.I. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5765 7 WP. No. 5617 of 2015 Rajendra Sharma who were present at the time of incident and were eye-witness of the incident did not give any statement against petitioner. On the same set of allegations/incident, the DIG, Gwalior Range, Gwalior, enquired the matter, issued a show cause notice to petitioner and taking into consideration all the evidence and after conducting enquiry passed the order Annexure P/2 dated 14.9.2012 imposing punishment of cost of Rs.2,000/- against petitioner. Respondent No.4 did not consider aforesaid order dated 14.09.2012 at the time of issuance of impugned order/recommendation dated 30.08.2014.
6. The State Government, in reply, has not disputed that on the same set of incident/fact, the department has already imposed punishment of Rs.2,000/- upon petitioner and once for the same incident punishment has already been imposed upon petitioner and if again as per recommendation department initiates against petitioner then petitioner suffers double jeopardy which is not permissible as per law.
7. It is profitable to refer the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in Lt. Governor, Delhi and others vs. HC Narinder Singh reported in (2004) 13 SCC 342, wherein it was held that :-
"4. Reading of the show-cause notice suggests as if it is in continuation of the departmental proceedings. Lack of devotion to duty is mentioned as the reason for the proposed action which was the subject- matter of the earlier proceedings as well. The second proposed action based on the same cause of action proposing to deny promotion or reversion is contemplated under the impugned show-cause notice. Second penalty based on the same cause of action would amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in law in annulling such an action. We are not expressing any opinion on the ambit or scope of any rule." (Emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5765 8 WP. No. 5617 of 2015
8. In view of forgoing discussion and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned recommendation dated 30.08.2014 (Annexure P/1) so far as it relates to petitioner deserves to be and is hereby quashed.
9. Petition stands accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/17/2026 7:15:36 PM