3 Sep 2025
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2025:MPHC-GWL:20242
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0046Datia, Madhya PradeshJudgment 3 September 2025
Seondha Police Constable and others v. State of M.P. and Others
The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Constables and [name withheld], posted at Police Station Seondha, Datia, were named by villagers as facilitating long-running illegal sand mining and transportation at Mauja Kandarpura, confirmed by a joint SDOP-Mining Officer inspection on 5 November 2019. After suspension and a departmental enquiry, both were removed from service by order dated 2 August 2022. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the enquiry findings, based on eleven witnesses and the documentary record, were neither perverse nor based on no evidence, noting beat constables could not plausibly be unaware of long-running mining in their beat. The Court held the Regulation 270 revisional removal order legal and justified, upheld it, and dismissed the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
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 3 September 2025 in WP No. 18398 of 2022, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Ashish Shroti, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 2 police personnel, namely: Constable, Police Station Seondha, Datia; Constable, Police Station Seondha, Datia.
- Register number
- MP 32 CW 0004
- Case reference
- WP No. 18398 of 2022 / 2025:MPHC-GWL:20242
- Court and date
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Ashish Shroti, J.), 3 September 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Station Seondha, Datia; Constable, Police Station Seondha, Datia
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Regulation Reg. 270(4) of the M.P. Police Regulations
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by respondent no.2 against the petitioners cannot be said to be perverse and based on no evidence.” (at para 22)
- 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 3 September 2025. 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.
“Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by respondent no.2 against the petitioners cannot be said to be perverse and based on no evidence.” (para 22)
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.