24 Feb 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 69
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0010Guna, Madhya PradeshJudgment 24 February 2026
Raghogarh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Assistant Sub-Inspector and Constable of Raghogarh Police Station, Guna, along with accomplices, de-boarded complainant [name withheld] from the Rajdhani Express at Kota railway station and looted approximately 4 kg of gold. Although the officer was subsequently acquitted by the criminal court due to hostile witnesses, a departmental inquiry found the charges of abduction and robbery proved, leading to his dismissal from service on May 11, 2021. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) dismissed his writ appeal, ruling that acquittal in a criminal case based on benefit of doubt does not bar departmental disciplinary proceedings and that looting and abduction by a police officer fully justified dismissal.
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 24 February 2026 in Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 2 police personnel, namely: Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Raghogarh; Constable, Police Station Raghogarh.
- Register number
- MP 08 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 69
- Court and date
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma, JJ.), 24 February 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Raghogarh; Constable, Police Station Raghogarh
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that mere acquittal by Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in …” (at para 14)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 24 February 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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.
“Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that mere acquittal by Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in …” (para 14)
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.