13 Feb 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2026:MPHC-GWL:5779
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0045Vidisha, Madhya PradeshJudgment 13 February 2026
Lateri Police Head Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Head Constable, posted at PS Anandpur (Lateri, Vidisha), faced a complaint leading to a fact-finding inquiry, charge-sheet and full departmental enquiry in which the charges were held proved. The SP Vidisha dismissed him on 28 February 2002, the IG rejected his appeal in October 2002, and the State converted dismissal to compulsory retirement in a mercy petition in September 2007. The court held mercy is an act of grace beyond claims of right and the petitioner had no enforceable right to challenge the mercy order. It refused reinstatement and dismissed the petition as bereft of substance; the underlying misconduct charge is not specified in the judgment. 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 13 February 2026 in WP No. 1336 of 2008, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Head Constable, Police Station Anandpur, Lateri, Vidisha.
- Register number
- MP 40 CW 0001
- Case reference
- WP No. 1336 of 2008 / 2026:MPHC-GWL:5779
- Court and date
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.), 13 February 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable, Police Station Anandpur, Lateri, Vidisha
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as compulsorily retired.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In view of the foregoing discussion and the facts and circumstances of the present case in their entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that when State Government itself has shown mercy to the delinquent by imposing a lesser …” (at para 12)
- 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 13 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.
“In view of the foregoing discussion and the facts and circumstances of the present case in their entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that when State Government itself has shown mercy to the delinquent by imposing a lesser …” (para 12)
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.