The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a disciplinary penalty imposed on an assistant sub-inspector, ruling that personnel facing different degrees of wrongdoing in the same inquiry cannot be subjected to identical administrative punishment.
In a September 1 order, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat remitted the matter to the departmental disciplinary authority for reconsideration, directing that any revised sanction against the assistant sub-inspector must be lighter than the penalty handed to a co-accused sub-inspector who was directly implicated in bribery.
Disparity in Culpability
The ruling arose from a departmental proceeding initiated following a bribery complaint, which led to the suspension of both officers on October 22, 2018. Although the assistant sub-inspector’s suspension was revoked on December 12, 2018, the disciplinary authority eventually sanctioned both personnel identically by withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect.
The petitioner, currently stationed at the Police Lines in Gwalior, challenged the parity of the punishment. Appearing on his behalf, advocate Raghvendra Dixit submitted that the inquiry officer did not find the primary charges of bribery and misconduct proved against the assistant sub-inspector. Instead, the petitioner was held liable only on the limited ground that he failed to report the incident to his superior officers, while the substantive allegations of corruption were established solely against the sub-inspector.
Defending the state’s action, advocate B. M. Patel argued that the departmental inquiry strictly followed statutory procedures, provided the officer a full opportunity to be heard, and justified the increment freeze.
Failure of Administrative Review
Before moving the high court, the assistant sub-inspector had exhausted internal remedies. His departmental appeal was rejected, and a subsequent mercy petition was dismissed in June 2021.
Justice Bahrawat observed that both the appellate and revisional bodies had acted mechanically, confirming the sanction without offering any rationale for why an officer guilty only of an omission to report should face the same consequence as an officer proven to have engaged in bribery.
Mandate for Proportionate Sanction
The high court held that joint involvement in an incident or a combined inquiry does not justify identical penalties, underscoring that individual responsibility, specific conduct, and varying degrees of culpability must be evaluated independently.
Finding the sanction against the petitioner marred by procedural illegality and disproportionality, the court quashed the initial punishment order along with the subsequent appellate and mercy petition rejections. The disciplinary authority has been directed to grant the assistant sub-inspector a hearing and issue a fresh, reasoned decision that accounts for his lesser role in the episode.
