29 May 2020
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: Writ Appeal No. 691 of 2019
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2020-0018Shajapur, Madhya PradeshJudgment 29 May 2020
Madhya Pradesh Police Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Constable, appointed in 1982 and transferred from Agar to Shajapur, was charge-sheeted in December 2003 for unauthorised absence in August-September 2003 against a record of twenty earlier minor penalties for absence. After due enquiry the charges were proved and he was compulsorily retired in June 2004; the appeal, mercy petition and writ petition all failed. The Division Bench held the Supreme Court cases he cited involved singular absences and were distinguishable from his habitual misconduct as uniformed personnel. Finding no procedural irregularity and the punishment not disproportionate, it declined admission of the writ appeal.
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 29 May 2020 in Writ Appeal No. 691 of 2019, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: S. C. Sharma, Shailendra Shukla, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police, Shajapur.
- Register number
- MP 42 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Writ Appeal No. 691 of 2019
- Court and date
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: S. C. Sharma, Shailendra Shukla, JJ.), 29 May 2020
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police, Shajapur
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as compulsorily retired.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The punishment is certainly not at all disproportionate to the guilt of the employee and, therefore, the admission is declined.” (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 29 May 2020 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.
“The punishment is certainly not at all disproportionate to the guilt of the employee and, therefore, the admission is declined.” (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.