Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajnesh Singh Bhadoriya on 29 October, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 RP-1710-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
RP No. 1710 of 2025
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs RAJNESH SINGH BHADORIYA )
Dated : 29-10-2025
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for applicants/State.
Shri Randhir Singh Ruhal - Advocate for Shri Shailendra Bharti.
Shri Siddharth Sijoria - Advocate for Smt. Beena Singh.
Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for respondent.
Heard through video conferencing.
The reply-affidavit of Shri Shailendra Bharti and Smt. Beena Singh
have been filed. Similarly, the Director General of Police, State of Madhya
Pradesh, has also filed his affidavit along with order dated 23/10/2025,
marked as Annexure D.
In the review petition, a solitary ground has been raised that, in fact a
presenting officer was appointed, and the delinquent officer was cross-
examined by the presenting officer. Whereas, the writ petition filed by the
delinquent officer, namely Rajnesh Singh Bhadoriya, was allowed primarily
on the ground that no presenting officer was appointed during the course of
the departmental enquiry, and the enquiry officer himself had cross-
examined the witnesses, which was reflected from the impugned order.
The operative part of the order under review, which is in paragraph 13,
reads as under:
"13. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by
the judgment passed in the aforesaid cases. The counsel
appearing for the respondents/State could not dispute
the aforesaid fact and fairly submits that the enquiry
2 RP-1710-2025
officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the matter
and conducted the cross-examination of the witness
which is not permissible. Apart from the aforesaid, he
has admitted the fact of imposition of major punishment
is contrary to Regulation 226 of M.P. Police
Regulations."
In paragraph 5.4 of the writ petition, it was specifically mentioned by
the delinquent officer that, (i) no presenting officer was appointed, (ii) the
witnesses were cross-examined by the enquiry officer only and (iii) a written
questionnaire was given to the delinquent officer by the enquiry officer, and
on the basis of that, the enquiry report was submitted. Whereas, in the return
filed with the affidavit of Shri Shailendra Bharti, there is no denial of these
grounds. In fact, Shri Shailendra Bharti gave an evasive reply with a solitary
intention to help out the delinquent officer who had filed the writ petition.
The OICs are appointed not to help out the wrongdoers but they are
appointed to put forward the case of the State.
Shri Shailendra Bharti had submitted his affidavit in support of his
return, which was filed in the writ petition, and he had specifically declared
that he is well conversant with the facts and that the contents of the return are
true to the best of his knowledge and which is based on record.
Although the counsel for Shri Shailendra Bharti submitted that, since
Shri Shailendra Bharti was appointed in SAF and he had no idea about the
investigation or the departmental proceedings, and he had filed the return
only on the basis of the impugned order, but the same cannot be accepted in
view of the affidavit filed by him along with the return.
Shockingly, on one hand the State Government has filed the review
petition on the ground that the departmental enquiry was conducted in
3 RP-1710-2025
accordance with law and the presenting officer was appointed and the
witnesses were cross-examined by the presenting officer and that fact was
never brought to the notice by the OIC to the Court and in spite of that, Smt.
Beena Singh, AIG, Shri Shailendra Bharti, the then OIC, and shockingly,
Shri Kailash Makwana, Director General of Police has also held, in order
dated 23/10/2025, that there was no mala fide on the part of Shri Shailendra
Bharti, and therefore, no action is required against him.
If the State Government was of the view that there were no lapses on
the part of the OIC, then they should not have preferred this review petition
and they should have followed the order passed by the Court and if they are
of the view that the entire record was not brought to the notice of this Court,
then they cannot go to the extent of protecting their erring police officers.
Accordingly, Shri Ankur Modi was directed to justify the order dated
23/10/2025, passed by Shri Kailash Makwana, Director General of Police,
which has been placed on record as Annexure D along with his affidavit.
Shri Ankur Modi prays for some time to make further submissions.
Time granted.
List on 07.11.2025 .
Shri Kailash Makwana, Director General of Police, is also granted
liberty that, if he so desires, he may file his supplementary affidavit.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Aman
