SP Competent To Initiate Departmental Inquiry, Punish SIs, ASIs Under MP Police Regulations: High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Superintendent of Police is empowered to initiate departmental proceedings against the Sub Inspector or Assistant Sub Inspector, including a joint inquiry, and impose punishment of withholding an increment. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 338]
The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed that the SP is empowered by Regulation 221 of the MP Police Regulations.
"As per Regulation 221, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to inflict punishment on SI and ASI as provided under Regulations 214 to 217 upon SI and ASI. Regulation 214(ii) provides that the punishment of withholding of increment can be inflicted by the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the ground of the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police is neither empowered nor having jurisdiction to initiate joint inquiry by issuing show cause notice and cannot inflict the punishment as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966 is not tenable in the eyes of law".
Two petitions were filed by Lajja Shankar Mishra, who joined service as a Sub Inspector in 1983 and was promoted to Inspector and then Deputy Superintendent of Police. While being posted at Chhatarpur Police Station, a Joint chargesheet was issued against him and another Assistant Sub-Inspector in 2006.
Following a departmental inquiry, three of the four charges against Mishra were found unproved, while one charge was found partially proved. The allegations against the ASI were found untrue. The SP subsequently imposed a punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect on Mshra while exonerating the ASI.
Mishra challenged the order before the DIG, but his appeal was rejected in March 2008. Thereafter, he approached the Inspector General of Police, contending that his representation should have been treated as a revision. The representation was rejected on the ground that a second appeal was not maintainable.
The petitioner argued that the SP lacked competence and jurisdiction to impose the punishment. It was argued that under the schedule appended to the MP Civil Service Rules of 1996, the DIG was the appointing authority for SI and ASI, and therefore the SP could not have imposed a major penalty as he was not the appointing authority.
The petitioner further argued that rejection of his appeal before the DIG and IGP was unsustainable as Regulation 270 provides the IGP with revisional powers, including the power of suo motu revision as well as the power to examine an application made by an aggrieved employee. Therefore, rejection of his representation on the ground that the second appeal is not maintainable was unsustainable in law, and the said representation ought to have been considered as a revision.
The petitioner also argued that he was subjected to a joint enquiry which could not have been conducted without prior sanction of the Governor per Rule 18 of the 1996 Rules.
The court noted that the schedule appended to the Rules 1996 notes that Class III posts, including Sub Inspector and Assistant Sub Inspector, are governed by Regulations, and therefore the Rules of 1996 do not apply to them.
Therefore, the bench noted that the Superintendent was empowered to inflict punishment on SI and ASI under Regulations 214 to 217.
Regarding the sanction of the Governor, the bench noted,
"However, from perusal of the Police Regulations as stated hereinabove, it is found that under Regulation 221 of the Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to initiate departmental enquiry and also to inflict punishment as provided under Regulation 214. Therefore, the said ground also is not sustainable in the eyes of law".
Thus, the bench dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Lajja Shankar Mishra v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-3952-2016
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 338
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah with Advocate Ankit Mishra
For State: Advocate KVS Sunil Rao