Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhusudan Rathod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2026
1 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585
W.P. No. 10040/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 10040 of 2024
MADHUSUDAN RATHOD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Pranjali Yajurvedi -Dy.G.A for the respondents/State.
Reserved on : 04/05/2026
Post on : 11/05/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 19.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585 W.P. No. 10040/2024 serving as a Constable (GD), has been visited with the major penalty of removal from service.
2. The petitioner further challenges the appellate order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Respondent No. 3, as well as the order dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the departmental appeal and the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner were respectively rejected.
3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the aforementioned orders and a consequential direction for his reinstatement into service with full back wages, seniority, and all other terminal benefits, contending that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory rules.
Facts of the Case
4. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable on 21.03.2013 and was posted in District Jhabua. On account of suffering from chronic ailments, including Hepatitis-A and cardiac complications, the petitioner had requested a transfer to his home district, Ratlam, to facilitate his ongoing medical treatment.
5. Although his application was recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Jhabua, vide letter dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure P/4), the Respondent No. 2, vide order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585 W.P. No. 10040/2024 17.07.2020, transferred the petitioner to District Dhar instead of Ratlam on administrative grounds.
6. On 20.07.2020, the petitioner applied for seven days of leave for a health check-up and to visit Bhopal, against which five days were sanctioned. The petitioner proceeded to the Police Headquarters (PHQ) in Bhopal to submit an oral representation regarding his transfer grievances but was denied an audience with the higher authorities.
7. While waiting near a shrine in front of the PHQ, the petitioner, being a devout individual, sat in meditation and began chanting mantras. Local media representatives recorded this event and telecasted news reports alleging that the petitioner had commenced a hunger strike/protest against the department.
8. Following this incident, the DIG Bhopal Range directed the initiation of disciplinary action. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the DSP, Jhabua, which culminated in a report dated 06.08.2020 finding the petitioner prima facie guilty of misconduct.
9. Consequently, a departmental enquiry (No. 5/2020) was initiated, and a charge sheet was served on 09.09.2020 alleging violations of Para 64 (3, 4) of the M.P. Police Regulations and Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
10. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 21.06.2021 finding all charges proved. Based Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM 4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585 W.P. No. 10040/2024 on this report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order of removal from service on 19.09.2021, which was subsequently upheld in appeal and mercy petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the entire departmental enquiry is vitiated as it was conducted with a "pre-set mind" and under pressure from higher authorities. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer himself acted as the prosecutor by cross- examining the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
12. It is further contended that the procedure adopted was dehors the rules, specifically Rule 14 (15) of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966. The prosecution witness P.W.-6 was recalled for a supplementary statement after the closure of the petitioner's defense to "fill up the lacuna," which is not permissible under the law.
13. The petitioner maintains that seeking leave to visit the PHQ which he describes as a "second home for every police officer"
cannot be termed misconduct. He denies the allegation of a hunger strike, stating he was merely meditating, and that the respondents have "made a mountain out of a molehill."Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM
5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585 W.P. No. 10040/2024
14. To support his challenge, the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 88, asserting that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and findings cannot be based on mere assumptions.
15. Furthermore, placing reliance on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, it is argued that the Appellate and Mercy Petition orders are "cryptic, non-speaking, and vague," having been passed without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner.
16. Finally, the petitioner invokes the doctrine of proportionality, citing Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611, contending that the punishment of removal is "shockingly disproportionate" given the petitioner's record of 25 rewards and only four minor punishments in his career.
Contentions of the Respondents
17. The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner committed a grave act of indiscipline. It is argued that despite taking leave for medical reasons, the petitioner traveled to the PHQ and sat on a hunger strike without obtaining statutory departmental permission.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585 W.P. No. 10040/2024
18. It is stated that the petitioner not only sat on a protest but also filmed himself and made the video viral on a WhatsApp group of fellow police personnel. Such an act is viewed as "tarnishing the image of the police" and is an "outrageous defiance" of discipline expected from a member of the uniformed force.
19. Regarding the procedural objections, the respondents maintain that the supplementary statement of witness No. 6 was recorded because certain documents were not initially exhibited, and the petitioner was given a full opportunity to cross-examine said witness.
20. It is denied that the Enquiry Officer acted with bias. The respondents contend that there is no record of the petitioner raising any objection regarding the Enquiry Officer's conduct during the proceedings.
21. The respondents conclude that the penalty of termination is commensurate with the misconduct of staging an unauthorized protest at the PHQ. They submit that the petitioner was afforded every opportunity of hearing and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis and Conclusion
22. This Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not an appellate authority over the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM 7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585 W.P. No. 10040/2024 findings of a disciplinary enquiry. However, the Court is duty- bound to intervene where the findings are based on "no evidence"
or where the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the judicial conscience.
23. Upon perusal of the charge memo- Annexure P/10 reads as under:-
": आयोऩ ::
1. दिन ांक 20.07.2020 को बफन वैध ननक बवब गीम अनुभनि प्र प्त दकमे, जजर भुख्म रम झ फुआ छोड़कय स्थ न ांियण हे िु ऩुनरस भुख्म रम, बोऩ र ऩहुांचन एवां अनशन ऩय फैठन ।
2. अनशन ऩय फैठकय स्वमां के भोफ ईर पोन से बवदडमो/पोटो फन कय अऩने स थी ऩुनरसकभी के व्ह ट्सएऩ ग्रुऩ भें प्रस रयि कय ऩुनरस की छबव धूनभर कयन ।
3. उऩयोक्त नुस य कि चयण कय स्वमां को श सकीम सेव के अनुऩमुक्त फन ने क कृ त्म कय भ.प्र.ऩुनरस ये ग्मूरेशन के ऩैय क्रभ ांक- 64(3,4) एवां भ.प्र. नसबवर सेव ( आचयण) ननमभ-1965 के ननमभ-3 (1) (III), भें ननदहि प्र वध न क उल्रांघन कयन ।"
24. This Court has scrutinized the evidence produced during the departmental enquiry. Regarding the first charge of sitting on a strike (Anshan), it is observed that the prosecution failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that the petitioner was indeed on a strike. Neither the journalists nor any independent witnesses confirmed the cessation of food or a formal strike. Here first charge Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM 8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585 W.P. No. 10040/2024 is not proved as there was no prove of Anshan and it has not been proved by any person.
25. The core of the allegation rests on a video recorded by media persons. However, the act of sitting and chanting mantras, even if done at the PHQ, does not automatically translate to the legal definition of a " strike" or "protest" in the absence of a demand or declaration to that effect.
26. With regard to the second charge, which involves the recording and circulation of a video in a WhatsApp group, this Court finds that while the petitioner may have acted indiscreetly by documenting his presence at the PHQ, it is not proportionate so that the dismissal can be done.
27. The law on proportionality is well-settled. In a disciplined force, discipline is paramount, but the punishment must suit the offender and the offence. Removing a Constable with a significant number of rewards for what essentially boils down to an unauthorized visit to the PHQ and a social media post is an "outrageous" penalty.
28. Furthermore, the procedural irregularity of recalling a witness (P.W. 6) after the delinquent's statement to fill lacunae, and the Enquiry Officer himself cross-examining the delinquent, lends credence to the petitioner's claim of bias.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM9 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13585 W.P. No. 10040/2024
29. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 19.09.2021 (Annexure P/1), the appellate order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P/2), and the order on the mercy petition dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P/3) are hereby quashed.
30. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. However, the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to impose proportionate punishment as per law, excluding the penalty of removal, dismissal, or compulsory retirement. The question of back wages shall be decided by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the relevant rules upon the conclusion of this remanded exercise.
31. Let the entire exercise be completed by the Disciplinary Authority within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
32 Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai) Judge hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/11/2026 4:49:49 PM