Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33970
1 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4022
1 W.P. No. 24904/2023
W.P. No.43709/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 24904 of 2023
RAMESHWAR PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prasun Pandey- Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Swati Ukhale -GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of punishment dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 4, whereby the penalty of stoppage of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/7/2026 5:14:04 PM 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4022 W.P. No. 24904/2023 one salary increment with cumulative effect was imposed. Further challenge is laid to the appellate order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure-P/2) and the subsequent order dated 09.01.2023 (Annexure-P/3) passed by Respondent No. 2, confirming the aforesaid punishment.
2. The facts of the case, as supplied, are that the petitioner was posted as a Head Constable at Police Station Niwali. A joint departmental inquiry (D.E. No. 13/2021) was initiated against the petitioner and one Mr. Keshav Patil (Officer-in-charge). The charge sheet (Annexure-P/4) leveled four charges against the petitioner: (i) misusing official authority on 17.03.2021 by threatening a watchman at Rani Kajal Mata Kusumya Goshala and attempting illegal transportation of seized cow progeny in vehicle no. MH 39 T 4824 (ii) directing the entry of false information in Rojnamcha No. 006/17.03.2021 at 10:21 AM regarding a missing person investigation in Maharashtra, in violation of Para 634 of the Police Regulation (iii) using abusive language and misbehaving with CCTNS Constable 71 Heermal over the phone on 12:53 PM the same day, violating Rule 3- A(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and (iv) causing a loss of image to the Police Department due to the highlighting of the illegal transportation of cow progeny in media and social media.
3. Upon the petitioner's denial of the charges, a regular Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/7/2026 5:14:04 PM 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4022 W.P. No. 24904/2023 departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer found Charges No. 2 and 3 proved, while Charges No. 1 and 4 were found not proved. Consequently, Respondent No. 4 passed the order dated 25.03.2022, imposing the punishment of stoppage of one salary increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner's subsequent appeals were dismissed by the appellate authorities on 31.05.2022 and 09.01.2023 respectively.
4. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders are arbitrary and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that Charge No. 2 regarding the Rojnamcha entry was a result of a night-shift operator's error and not at the petitioner's behest. Regarding Charge No. 3, the petitioner submits that the language used was colloquial and not intended to abuse, notably the concerned person (PW-10 Heermal Alawa) admitted he did not feel offended. The petitioner further challenges the validity of the joint inquiry, asserting that prior permission under Rule 18 of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, was not obtained. Finally, it is contended that since Charges No. 1 and 4 were not proved, Charges No. 2 and 3, being interconnected, could not have been sustained.
5. Per-contra, the respondents, in their reply, submits that the departmental inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/7/2026 5:14:04 PM 4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4022 W.P. No. 24904/2023 rules. They contend that the incident involved the suspicious and illegal movement of seized cattle, and the petitioner attempted to mask his movements by making false entries in the Rojnamcha. It is specifically stated that permission for the joint inquiry was duly obtained from the Deputy Inspector General of Police under Rule 18, as evidenced by Annexure R-1. The respondents maintain that the petitioner was given a full opportunity for hearing and that the misconduct proved against him tarnished the image of the Police Department, justifying the punishment imposed.
6. Heard both parties at length and examined the entire record available.
7. This Court, upon due consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, has examined the Charge Sheet (Annexure P/4). The specific charges as quoted verbatim are:-
(1) ददन ां क 17.03.21 को प्र.आर. 233 र मेश्वर प ण्डे य तत्क लीन पदस्थ थ न दनव ली व्द र अपने पद क दु रूपयोग कर गदिन्द्र बुलेरो पीकअप लोद ां ग व िन क. एम.एच 39 टी. 4824 को र णीक जल म त , कुसम्य गौश ल ले ज कर गौश ल के चौकीांद र दे वीदसांि को र धमक कर पु दलस क रौब ददख कर, योजन बद्ध तरीके जप्तशुदर गौदां श क अवै ध पररविन कर सांदग्धि आचरण क प्रदशश न करन ।Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/7/2026 5:14:04 PM
5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4022 W.P. No. 24904/2023 (2) ददन ां क 17.03.21 को थ न प्रध न रक्षक (लेखक) के पद पदस्थ रिते हुए, र णीक जल म त कुरुम्य (दनव ली) गौण लई ज न्न और गुगइां स न कां 5/20 (गुमशु द चतरीब ई) में दववे चक ज ां चकत श न िोते हुए, भी स्वयां मि र ष्ट्र ज ने की अगत्य एवां फजी प्रदवदष्ट् थ न दनव ली रोजन मच आम में रो०स ० कां 006/17.3.21 के 10.21 बजे तथ रो०स ० कां 011/17.3.21 के 11.52 बजे दजश करव कर पुदलस रे ग्युलेशन पै र 634 क उल्लां घन करन ।
(3) ददन ां क 17.03.21 को रो.स . क 011/17.03.21 के 11.52 बजे गुम इां स न के 05/2020 (गुमशु द चतरीब ई) में रव नगी दजश िोने हुए, भी 12.53 बजे रव नगी दजश करने के दलए अपने मोब ईल नम्बर 8989007373 से थ न दनव ली पर पत्टस्थ सी.सी.टी.एन.एस. आरक्षक 71 दिरमल को अश्लीलत पू वशक ग ली गलौच कर व अपने पद क दु रुपयोग कर अम्रद व्यवि र कर अदशष्ट् आचरण प्रददशश त कर म.प्र. दसदवल से व (आचरण) दनयम 1965 के दनयम 3-क (क) क उल्लां घन करन ।
(4) ददन ां क 17.03.21 को प्रध न आरक्षक 268 र मेश्वर प ण्डे य द्व र मांदिन्द बुलेरो पीकअप लोद ां ग व िन क. एम.एच 39 टी 24 को र णीक जल म त गौश ल ले ज कर जप्तशु द गौवां श क योजन बद्ध तरीके से अवै ध पररवचन करने ोरूप सीद य , शोशल मीद य में उक्त कृत्य प्रक दशत िोकर आम जनत में पुदलस की छदव को धूदमल करन ।"
8. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner's challenge regarding the lack of permission for a joint inquiry under Rule 18 of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, stands neutralized by the production of Annexure R-1 by the respondents. The record indicates that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, being the competent authority, had indeed granted the requisite permission. Consequently, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/7/2026 5:14:04 PM
6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4022 W.P. No. 24904/2023 the contention that the entire inquiry is vitiated on this technical ground is devoid of merit.
9. Upon careful examination of the findings pertaining to Charge No. 2, this Court finds that the petitioner, while being the Head Constable Writer, admittedly caused entries to be made in the General Diary (Rojnamcha) regarding a missing person case for which he was not the Investigating Officer. The defense that this occurred due to a change in computer operators is not substantiated by the evidence on record. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the computer operator in question was not examined, and no documentary evidence was adduced to support this argument. The General Diary is a sanctified document under the Police Regulation, and any false entry therein by a police official constitutes a serious breach of discipline.
10. Regarding Charge No. 3, the petitioner argues that PW-10 did not feel bad despite the use of foul language. In this context, it is noteworthy that even in cross-examination, PW-10 did not deny the use of foul language but merely stated that he did not feel offended. However, this Court observes that the standard of conduct expected from a member of a disciplined force is not determined by the sensitivity of the recipient of the abuse, but by the Rules of Conduct themselves. Rule 3 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/7/2026 5:14:04 PM 7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4022 W.P. No. 24904/2023 mandates every government servant to maintain absolute integrity and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. Consequently, using abusive language with a subordinate or colleague while on duty squarely falls within the ambit of "unbecoming conduct,"
regardless of whether the recipient personally felt offended.
11. Furthermore, the petitioner's argument that Charge Nos. 2 and 3 must fail because Charge Nos. 1 and 4 were not proved is legally untenable. In departmental proceedings, each charge is evaluated on its own merits based on the preponderance of probabilities. The failure to prove the illegal transportation of cattle (Charge No. 1) does not absolve the petitioner of the established fact that he made false entries in the Rojnamcha and used improper language, both of which constitute independent acts of misconduct.
12. This Court further finds that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authorities have applied their minds to the Inquiry Report. The petitioner was afforded a full opportunity for hearing, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The punishment of "stoppage of one salary increment with cumulative effect" is a minor penalty under the CCA Rules and cannot be termed as disproportionate or shocking to the conscience of the Court given the nature of the proved charges.Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/7/2026 5:14:04 PM
8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4022 W.P. No. 24904/2023
13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the departmental inquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice and the findings of the authorities are based on the evidence available on record. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to the decision-making process, and in the absence of any procedural illegality or perversity, this Court is loath to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
15. Pending application, if any, shall be disposed off accordingly.
(Jai Kumar Pillai) Judge hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/7/2026 5:14:04 PM