Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajnesh Singh Bhadoriya on 7 November, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia, Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28237
1 RP-1710-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1710 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJNESH SINGH BHADORIYA
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for applicants/State.
Shri Randhir Singh Ruhal - Advocate for Shri Shailendra Bharti.
Shri Siddharth Sijoria - Advocate for Smt. Beena Singh.
Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This review petition has been filed against the judgment/order dated 28/08/2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2339/2016 by which petition filed by respondent was allowed on the ground that an enquiry officer had acted as a prosecutor.
2. By this review petition, it is alleged that in fact the presenting officer was appointed and respondent was cross-examined by presenting officer.
3. Accordingly, pleadings of parties were looked into, and it was found that in the writ petition, a specific stand was taken by respondent that presenting officer was not appointed, and enquiry officer had acted as prosecutor.
4. In reply to the said pleading, OIC did not refute the said averments and simply alleged that enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. Accordingly, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that enquiry officer had acted as a prosecutor. When this review petition was filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 11-11-2025 17:55:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28237 2 RP-1710-2025 alleging that in fact presenting officer was appointed and enquiry office did not act as a prosecutor, then this Court after going through the pleadings, passed the following order on 25/09/2025:-
"Issue notice of I.A. No. 7280 of 2025, as well as, on merits, on payment of process by registered mode/speed post, payable within three working days.
2. The only bone of contention to file this review petition is that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent only on the ground that the Enquiry Officer had acted as a Public Prosecutor. However, it is the case of the applicants that in fact a Presenting Officer was appointed and the delinquent officer/respondent was crossexamined by the Presenting Officer and, accordingly, copy of the deposition sheet of the delinquent officer/respondent has also been placed on record, which bears the signatures of the Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer as well as the respondent.
3. The record of the writ petition has also been placed along with this review petition.
Paragraph 5.4 of the writ petition reads as under:-
"5.4 That, during the course of the departmental enquiry the disciplinary authority has not appointed the Presenting Officer during the enquiry and conducted the enquiry against the petitioner and cross-examined the witnesses during the course of enquiry and enquiry officer himself cross- examined as a prosecutor. The enquiry officer has handed over the written 1 RP-1710-2025 questionnaire to the witnesses and on the basis of written questionnaire, the enquiry has been concluded in the matter which is contrary to the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and also contrary to the judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ram Prakash Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P.No.414/2002 vide order Annexure P/8 dated 16.11.2009 and against the order the State of M.P. filed a Writ Appeal No.200/2010 before the Division Bench of this Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 11-11-2025 17:55:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28237
3 RP-1710-2025 Hon'ble Court and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court affirmed the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench vide order dated 23.4.2010 Annexure P/9."
4. Thus, it was the specific case of the respondent that no Presenting Officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and it was the Enquiry Officer who himself cross-examined the respondent as a Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the State was directed to go through the return filed by the State, and it was fairly conceded by him that in reply to paragraph 5.4 of the writ petition, a very vague reply was given and it was not pointed out by the OIC that a Presenting Officer was appointed and the respondent was cross-examined by the Presenting Officer and not by the Enquiry Officer.
6. Paragraph 5.4 of the return reads as under:-
"That, the facts as mentioned in para 5.4 of this petition are misconceived, hence denied and it is submitted that enquiry officer has enquired into the matter by following due process known to law and no at any point of time, petitioner has raised any objection against the enquiry, but in fact petitioner has participated in the enquiry and also produced his defense, which was considered which was considered by the Enquiry Officer, so far as the orders Annexure P-8 and P-9 are concerned, in this regard it is submitted that these orders are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
7. This return was supported by an affidavit of Shailendra Bharti, 2 RP- 1710-2025 Assistant Commandant, 14th BN, SAF, Gwalior.
8. Thus, in nutshell, it is the case of the applicants that in fact fraud was played on this Court and even the OIC played a very important and active role by suppressing material facts, and in fact he had supported the contention of the respondent made in the writ petition, whereas it was contrary to the record.
9. When a specific question was put to Shri S.S. Kushwaha, Govt. Advocate as to whether any action has been taken against Shailendra Bharti, Assistant Commandant, 14th BN, SAF, Gwalior, who had filed his affidavit in support of the return, then it was submitted by counsel for the applicant that in absence of any instructions, he cannot make Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 11-11-2025 17:55:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28237 4 RP-1710-2025 any statement.
10. The aforesaid reply is shocking to the conscience of this Court. In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that the Assistant Inspector General of Police vide his letter dated 21-04-2025 forwarded the matter to the Law and Legislative Department for grant of permission to file review. Thus, it is clear that even the Assistant Inspector General of Police was also aware of the fact that one of his Officers namely, Shailendra Bharti, had played fraud on the Court by suppressing the material fact, but it appears that he also sat quietly on the matter and did not send the recommendation for taking departmental action against Shailendra Bharti, who was working as Assistant Commandant, 14th BN, SAF, Gwalior at the relevant time.
11. Accordingly, issue contempt notice to Shri Shailendra Bharti, son of Shri Chaturbhuj Bhadkaria, who was working as Assistant Commandant, 14th BN, SAF, Gwalior at the relevant time. The notice shall be served 3 RP-1710-2025 through Director General of Police because either his present address or the present place of posting must be in the knowledge of the Police Department.
12. Issue notice to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, who had sent his recommendation to the Home Department as well as to the Law and Legislative Department for grant of permission to file review, to explain as to why he did not propose any action against Shailendra Bharti, the then Assistant Commandant, 14th BN, SAF, Gwalior. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the details of the name and particulars of such Assistant Inspector General of Police have not been given. Therefore, notice shall also be served through the Director General of Police after verifying who was the Assistant Inspector General of Police who had sent his recommendation for grant of permission to file review but did not send his recommendation to take action against Shailendra Bharti, the then Assistant Commandant, 14th BN, SAF, Gwalior.
13. The Director General of Police is also directed to submit his detailed reply as to whether the Police Department is happy with such officers who are out and out supporting the delinquent officers by not Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 11-11-2025 17:55:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28237 5 RP-1710-2025 filing the correct and detailed reply before the High Court, and if not, then what action is proposed against the Assistant Inspector General of Police as well as Shri Shailendra Bharti, Assistant Commandant, 14th BN, SAF, Gwalior.
14. In view of the grounds raised by the applicants in the review petition, it is directed that the effect and operation of order dated 28-08- 2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2339/2016 shall remain stayed till next date of listing.
15. List this case on 28-10-2025.
16. The DGP must ensure that not only Shailendra Bharti and the Assistant Inspector General of Police are served much prior thereto, but he shall also ensure that his detailed reply is also filed prior to next date of listing."
5. Thereafter, Shri Kailash Makwana, Director General of Police, State of M.P. has filed his affidavit alongwith order dated 23/10/2025 mentioning therein that no action is required against Shri Shailendra Bharti the then OIC and Smt. Beena Singh, AIG who had recommended for filing of review petition without any recommendation to take action against Shri Shailendra Bharti. Thus, it is clear that according to DGP, State of M.P., there was no suppression of material fact by OIC, therefore, no action was required against the OIC for suppressing the material facts.
6. It is really surprising that on one hand, police is of the view that there is no suppression of material fact and does not require further action against the OIC and on the other hand, has filed review petition on the ground that the facts which have been taken into consideration are not borne out from the record. If the police department was of the view that action of OIC is as per the high standards, honesty as well as discipline expected from a police officer, then they should not have filed this review petition.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 11-11-2025 17:55:12NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28237 6 RP-1710-2025
7. By filing this review petition, police department has directly or indirectly alleged that correct facts were not placed before this Court and in spite of the fact that everything was clear before DGP, State of M.P., he decided not to take any action against erring officers in spite of opportunity given by this Court that if the DGP, State of M.P. wants to file any supplementary affidavit, then he may do so.
8. It is submitted by Shri Ankur Mody that communication was made to DGP, State of M.P., but no reply has been received.
9. Thus, it is clear that DGP, State of M.P. is still sticking to his earlier stand that there was no deliberate suppression of fact by OIC causing damage to reputation of police department.
10. Be that whatever it may be.
11. This Court is not concerned about the maintenance of law and order or the activities of OIC. Officer in-charge is appointed by department to represent its case and the department is of the view that OIC can suppress the fact and for that no mala fides can be attributed to him, then they should be happy with the acts of such OIC's and should not file review petition before this Court pleading inter alia that all the facts were not placed and considered by this Court.
12. Since, DGP, State of M.P. is of the view that there was no suppression of material facts by his OIC and his conduct is as per the high traditions of Police Department, then this Court is of the considered opinion that police department cannot maintain the review petition on the ground that review petition was allowed dehors the record of the departmental enquiry. Accordingly, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
13. This Court has also issued contempt notice to Shri Shailendra Bharti, which shall be decided independently by considering that whether there was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 11-11-2025 17:55:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28237 7 RP-1710-2025 suppression of fact by him or not. Dismissal of this review petition is only on the ground that Police Department cannot blow hot and cool at the same time, and dismissal of this review petition shall not have any effect on the contempt proceedings.
14. The State of M.P., if so desire, may take action against erring officers, and they may also recover the financial repercussions which shall be faced by it on account of reinstatement of respondent.
15. Office is directed to keep a copy of this order in the file of contempt petition No.6615/2025.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE PjS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 11-11-2025 17:55:12