Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhanendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650
1 WP-20078-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 20078 of 2023
BHANENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shashank
Indapurkar & Shri Manish Gurjar - Advocates for the petitioner.
Smt. Monika Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 31.05.2023 whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on him on account of misconduct found proved in the enquiry. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.06.2023 and 03.05.2024 whereby his appeal and the mercy appeal has been dismissed by the respective authorities.
[2]. The facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was working as Constable GD in 17th Battalion, SAF, Bhind. In connection with certain allegations, he was placed under suspension on 09.09.2022. A preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein he was prima-facie found guilty of the allegation. In view of conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner's suspension was revoked on 20.10.2022. A charge-sheet was Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650 2 WP-20078-2023 thereafter issued to him on 01.11.2022 wherein following charge was levelled against him:
//आरोप//
01. दनांक 08.09.22 को राम ारा धमशाला कंपनी कै प योपुर (म० ०) म रा लगभग 1000 बजे आर० 660 भाने िसंह ए समवाय ारा आर० 296 याम सुदं र िसंह, आर0 531 पु पे द िसंह, आर0 424 संद प िसंह को जाित सूचक गािलयां दया जाना, गािलयां दये जाने का कारण पूछे जाने पर उ े जत होकर यादव समाज के बु य य का नाम लेकर अ ील गािलयां द जाना एवं अशोभनीय श द का योग कर पुिलस रे युलेशन के पैरा 64 के उप पैरा 2, 3, 4, एवं 1 का उ लघन करना।
[3]. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet denying the charge levelled against him.
[4]. In furtherance of departmental enquiry, one Mr. Pradeep Kumar -
Inspector of 17th Battalion, Bhind was appointed as Enquiry Officer while Shri Krishna Sahu - Assistant Sub-Inspector, 17th Battalion, Bhind was appointed as Presenting Officer. The enquiry was conducted wherein 16 prosecution witnesses were examined. After conclusion of departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.02.2023 wherein, the charge was found proved against the petitioner.
[ 5 ] . The Commandant of the Battalion, being the Disciplinary Authority, prima-facie concurred with the findings of Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.02.2023 (Annexure R/4) wherein a copy of enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner and he was asked to give his explanation to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.03.2023 whereby he again denied the allegations made against him. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650 3 WP-20078-2023 impugned order dated 31.05.2023 thereafter came to be passed by the Commandant whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. As stated above, the appeal and the mercy appeal filed by the petitioner also suffered dismissal vide impugned orders dated 19.06.2023 & 03.05.2024. The petitioner is accordingly before this Court challenging the order of punishment.
[6]. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the ground that there was no misconduct committed by the petitioner. Referring to reply to the charge-sheet given by the petitioner, he submitted that since the petitioner lodged a complaint against his co- employee Shri Pushpendra Singh Yadav, he alongwith another co-employee Shri Shyam Sundar and Sandeep Singh hatched a conspiracy against the petitioner. It is his submission that the incident in question occurred after the duty hours in a closed room and, therefore, the same could not have been termed as misconduct. Learned counsel also submitted that among the Police personnel, using filthy language is a normal course. He also argued that even if the allegation made against the petitioner is found to be established, the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate looking to the nature of charges. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Ganesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2013(2) MPLJ 402 as also by Culcutta High Court in the case of Mahesh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC Online Cal. 705 and by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Lokendra Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650 4 WP-20078-2023 Online Del. 12668. Learned counsel thus prayed for setting-aside of the impugned orders and for reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits.
[7]. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the impugned action of the respondents. He argued that the act of the petitioner in abusing his co-employees using filthy language concerning their caste and by taking name of reputed dignitaries of the caste. He submitted that the petitioner, being the member of the disciplined force, was not expected to act in this manner and his act cannot be tolerated. Learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry are based upon appreciation of statements given by the prosecution witnesses. It is his submission that the factual finding recorded by enquiry officer and concurred by disciplinary as also by appellate authority in the enquiry is not opened to interference by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review. He further submitted that in the past also, the petitioner was indulged in using filthy language with his co-employees, therefore, the charge levelled against the petitioner was a serious one justifying the punishment of dismissal from service. He thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.
[8]. Considered the arguments and perused the departmental enquiry record produced by learned Govt. Advocate.
[9]. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is profitable to refer to the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review. The Apex Court dealt with this aspect in the case of Union Of India & Ors Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015)2 SCC 610 wherein the Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650 5 WP-20078-2023 held in para 13 as under;
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
[10]. Thus, if there is some material available on record to support the findings recorded in the enquiry, the interference is not warranted in the writ jurisdiction.
[11]. A perusal of the enquiry report available in the record of enquiry shows that as many as 16 prosecution witnesses were examined in support of charges. The act of petitioner in using abusive language finds support with their statements. Therefore, the findings recorded to the extent that the petitioner abused his co-employees by their caste, does not warrant any interference.
[12]. The issue is as to whether the act of petitioner in using abusive language with his co-employees after the duty hours in a closed room would amount to a misconduct that too of such a grave nature so as to call for the extreme penalty of dismissal from service?
[13]. The term 'misconduct' means and include, inter-alia, riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour. For constituting misconduct, riotous or Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650 6 WP-20078-2023 disorderly or indecent behaviour should have some rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim. It is equally true that discipline at the workplace in an organization like SAF, is the sine qua non for its efficient working. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is normally not open to the Court to take a different view. It is essential for the prosperity of the organization as well as that of its employees. However, when abusive language is used by an employee against his colleague that too in a closed room, it must be viewed looking to the surrounding atmosphere, the environment in which that person is situate and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language. No strait-jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts.
[14]. What happened in this case on 08.09.2022? The Company was deputed for maintaining law and order in Sheopur. The petitioner and other employees of the Company were resting in Ramdwara Dharmashala Company camp after the duty hours. As per the allegation made, the petitioner consumed liquor. As stated by petitioner in his defence, the other three employees provoked him which resulted in utterance of abusive language. The incident was video recorded and was made viral. In its impugned order, the disciplinary authority has observed that on earlier two occasions also, the petitioner was inflicted with minor punishments on account of his habit of consuming liquor. However, neither the act of consuming liquor nor his past conduct was the charge levelled against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650 7 WP-20078-2023 petitioner. Further, the petitioner was not put to notice that his past conduct is also being examined in the matter. Further, the authority failed to take into account the defence put-forth by petitioner that since he had earlier made complaint against Shri Pushpendra Singh Yadav on 14.07.2022, he alongwith others hatched this conspiracy. Further, the act of petitioner was confined in a closed room which could not have tarnished the image of company. The image of company was infact tarnished because of viral video which was not done by the petitioner. Who made the video viral, is also not considered by authority.
[15]. Thus, though the act of petitioner has no direct connection with his duty, even if it is accepted that it was necessary to take action against him to maintain discipline, the authority ought to have considered the material aspects of the matter while taking decision on quantum of punishment. In view of the aforesaid discussion of facts, the authority failed to consider the material aspects. The consideration of his past record aggravated the charge levelled against the petitioner, which could not have been done without putting the petitioner to notice.
[16]. In the case of Ram Kishan vs. Union of India reported in (1995)6 SCC 157, a constable was charged of abusing his superior officer. Dealing with the same, the Apex Court held as under:
"11. It is next to be seen whether imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation. When abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language. No strait-jacket formula could be evolved Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650
8 WP-20078-2023 in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. What was the nature of the abusive language used by the appellant was not stated.
12. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of charge imputed to the delinquent constable. Accordingly, we set aside the dismissal order. We hold that imposition of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would be an appropriate punishment. So, we direct the disciplinary authority to impose that punishment. However, since the appellant himself is responsible for the initiation of the proceedings, we find that he is not entitled to back wages; but, all other consequential benefits would be available to him."
[17]. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court as also the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court also took a similar view in the case o f Lokendra Pal & Mahesh Singh (supra) which have been cited by petitioner's counsel.
[18]. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary authority as also appellate authority failed to consider the specific defence taken by the petitioner. The authorities also failed to evaluate the circumstances and the situation in which the incident took place. Further, the serious part of charge that because of the act, the image of the company was tarnished, does not relate to the act of petitioner rather it relates to the act of making video viral about which there is not finding recorded. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is found to be harsh and excessive looking to the gravity of act alleged against him. The matter is, therefore, required to be reconsidered on this aspect by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2650 9 WP-20078-2023 disciplinary authority.
[ 1 9 ] . Accordingly, the order dated 31.05.2023, 19.06.2023 & 03.05.2024 are quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant, 17th Battalion SAF, Bhind for reconsidering the matter on the question of quantum of punishment. The petitioner's entitlement to get the backwages shall also be decided by the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment.
[20]. Let needful be done within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE vpn/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 1/28/2026 10:22:31 AM