15 Jan 2013
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2014) 2 MPHT 473; (2013) 1 MPLJ 583; (2013) 01 MP CK 0138
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2013-0019Gwalior, Madhya PradeshJudgment 15 January 2013
State of M.P. vs Madhya Pradesh Police personnel and others
The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Police officer faced a departmental enquiry on charges of taking Rs. 28,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 10,000 from three persons on the promise of securing them police employment; ten witnesses deposed, the charges were found proved, and the Superintendent of Police dismissed him, affirmed on departmental appeal. He was separately acquitted in three criminal cases under Section 420 IPC and Sections 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and a Single Judge reinstated him under Police Regulation 241. The Division Bench held the criminal acquittals were on benefit of doubt or lack of evidence and did not wipe out the misconduct proved in the departmental enquiry on a different standard of proof. Allowing the State's appeal, the Court set aside the reinstatement order and restored the dismissal from service.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 15 January 2013 in Writ Appeal No. 573 of 2011, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: S.K. Gangele, G.D. Saxena, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Police personnel, Madhya Pradesh Police.
- Register number
- MP 07 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Writ Appeal No. 573 of 2011 / (2014) 2 MPHT 473; (2013) 1 MPLJ 583; (2013) 01 MP CK 0138
- Court and date
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: S.K. Gangele, G.D. Saxena, JJ.), 15 January 2013
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police personnel, Madhya Pradesh Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 420 (tried; acquitted) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 8/9 (tried; acquitted) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the MP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “From three persons, the respondent No. 1 had taken money with a promise that he would secure employment of some persons in the police. It is a charge of corruption. The respondent No. 1 was a member of police force.” (at para 10)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated 15 January 2013 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“From three persons, the respondent No. 1 had taken money with a promise that he would secure employment of some persons in the police. It is a charge of corruption. The respondent No. 1 was a member of police force.” (para 10)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.