A Superintendent of Police or equivalent Commandant may issue joint charge-sheets against police personnel up to Inspector rank.

The petitioners, police personnel serving in the 17th Battalion, SAF, had been promoted from the rank of Constable to Head Constable/Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector, and were discharging duties as Quarter Masters.

An unsigned complaint allegedly made by staff members and officers resulted in a preliminary enquiry. Relying on the preliminary enquiry report dated 15 November 2024, the authorities issued a joint charge-sheet dated 16/26 December 2024 against the petitioners.

The petitioners challenged the charge-sheet under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the complaint was anonymous and inadmissible, that prior approval for the joint disciplinary enquiry had not been obtained, and that Shri Shivdayal Singh, who was holding additional charge as Commandant of the 17th Battalion, lacked competence to issue the charge-sheet.

The State contended that Shri Singh had been validly entrusted with the charge of Commandant by order dated 12 December 2023, that the Inspector General of Police had granted approval on 27 November 2024, and that the Commandant/Superintendent of Police was competent under the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations to issue the charge-sheet.

1. Whether prior approval of the competent authority was required for initiating the joint departmental enquiry against the petitioners, and whether such approval had been obtained

2. Whether the officer holding charge as Commandant of the 17th Battalion, SAF, was competent to issue the charge-sheet against the petitioners

3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the charge-sheet at the preliminary stage on the grounds of alleged incompetence, reliance on an unsigned complaint, or illegality

Regulation 223 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations empowers the Inspector General of Police to impose penalties under Regulations 214 and 215 upon police personnel from the rank of Constable to Inspector; consequently, the Inspector General is competent to approve a joint departmental enquiry concerning such personnel.

Regulation 228 authorises the Superintendent of Police to frame and issue charge-sheets in cases involving police personnel subordinate to that rank, and this power extends to joint enquiries, as held in Raju Singh Ahirwar v. State of M.P., 2017 (4) MPLJ 661.

The Court also relied on Arun Prakash Yadav v. State of M.P., 2013 (3) MPLJ 508, as discussed in Anil Singhai v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 20475 of 2014, for the principle that Regulation 228 governs the competence to issue charge-sheets against police personnel.

The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 were held inapplicable because Class III non-ministerial police posts are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations.

Under Union of India v. Kunishetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, a writ petition ordinarily does not lie against a charge-sheet unless it is wholly without jurisdiction, ex facie illegal, or actuated by mala fides.

The Court found that the Inspector General of Police had granted prior approval for the joint disciplinary proceedings through communication dated 27 November 2024. Since Regulation 223 authorises the Inspector General to impose even major penalties, the Court held that he was also competent to approve the initiation of a joint enquiry.

Shri Shivdayal Singh had been formally entrusted with the charge of Commandant of the 17th Battalion, SAF, by the competent authority, and the rank of Commandant was undisputedly equivalent to that of Superintendent of Police.

Applying Regulations 223 and 228 and the decisions in Raju Singh Ahirwar and Anil Singhai, the Court held that the officer holding charge as Commandant had authority to issue the joint charge-sheet.

The objection concerning the unsigned complaint did not establish jurisdictional invalidity, particularly when a preliminary enquiry had been conducted and the allegations had been found prima facie substantiated.

Because the charge-sheet was issued by a competent authority after obtaining the requisite approval, and no mala fide or ex facie illegality was demonstrated, the exceptional threshold for judicial interference at the charge-sheet stage was not met.

Since the challenge disclosed no jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or mala fide, the writ petition was dismissed.

The Disciplinary Authority was nevertheless directed to complete the departmental enquiry in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.