Disciplinary penalties cannot be interfered with unless shockingly disproportionate or procedurally flawed.

The petitioners, police personnel posted at Police Station Behri, were subjected to disciplinary proceedings following an inquiry into Marg No. 75/2018.

The charges involved a failure to timely forward vaginal slides to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Sagar, in a case involving alleged offenses under the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC.

Specifically, there was an inordinate delay of over two months in preparing and sending the FSL draft, and Petitioner No. 1 failed to register the offense despite having the diary.

The Inquiry Officer found the petitioners guilty of violating Regulations 64(2) and 583(A) of the M.P. Police Regulation Act.

Consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect.

The petitioners challenged this on grounds of discrimination, as a co-delinquent (Abhishek Singh Parihar) received a non-cumulative penalty, and alleged non-compliance with joint inquiry procedures under Rule 18 of the M.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1966.

The Appellate Authority upheld the penalty on 08.04.2025.

1. Whether the penalty imposed was discriminatory in light of the lesser punishment awarded to a co-delinquent

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by the failure to pass an order for a joint inquiry under Rule 18 of the M.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1966

3. Whether the High Court can interfere with the proportionality of the punishment under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution

M.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, specifically Rule 18 regarding joint inquiries

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint in disciplinary matters established in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), which restricts the High Court from re-appreciating evidence or interfering with findings unless they lack legal evidence or the punishment "shocks the conscience"

The court cited B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995), affirming that disciplinary and appellate authorities have exclusive power to impose appropriate punishment based on the gravity of misconduct, and judicial review is limited to exceptional cases of gross disproportionality.

The Court rejected the plea of discrimination, noting that the charges against the petitioners were more severe than those against the co-delinquent, Parihar.

While Parihar was only partially negligent for failing to obtain the report, the petitioners were directly responsible for a two-month delay in a serious sexual assault investigation and failed to register the FIR.

Regarding the procedural lapse under Rule 18 of the 1966 Rules, the Court found that the petitioners had not raised this ground in their original pleadings or rejoinder, thus precluding them from raising it at this stage.

The Court further observed that the Appellate Authority’s order, while "succinct and terse," provided sufficient reasons regarding the gravity of the charges and the rank of the officers involved.

Applying the standards from P. Gunasekaran and B.C. Chaturvedi, the Court determined that the findings were based on evidence and the punishment was proportionate to the serious nature of the professional negligence.

The Court affirmed that the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was commensurate with the gravity of the petitioners' failure to act in a POCSO/rape investigation.

The Court declined to interfere with the orders dated 14.06.2022 and 13.02.2023, as the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and the findings were not perverse.