Archive · 3 Sep 2026
Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes ASI Penalty in Bribery Case
A police assistant sub-inspector and a sub-inspector were investigated over an alleged bribery incident.
The sub-inspector was found responsible for bribery and misconduct.
The assistant sub-inspector was found responsible only for not telling senior officers about the incident.
Even so, both officers received the same punishment.
The assistant sub-inspector challenged his punishment in court.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said people with different roles should not automatically receive identical punishments.
The court cancelled the assistant sub-inspector’s punishment and related decisions.
It sent the matter back for a new decision after hearing him.
The court said any new punishment must be lighter than the sub-inspector’s punishment.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the ASI’s disciplinary punishment.
The ASI was found responsible for failing to report the incident, not bribery or misconduct.
The sub-inspector was found guilty of the bribery and misconduct charges.
Both officers had been punished by withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect.
The court ordered reconsideration and said any fresh punishment must be lesser than the sub-inspector’s penalty.
- Who
- An assistant sub-inspector, a sub-inspector, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the state authorities.
- What
- The court quashed the ASI’s punishment for his lesser role in an alleged bribery incident and ordered reconsideration.
- When
- The court’s order was dated September 1; the ASI’s mercy petition was dismissed in June 2021.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Madhya Pradesh High Court; the ASI was posted at Police Lines, Gwalior.
- Why
- The court found the same punishment disproportionate because bribery and misconduct were proved against the sub-inspector, while the ASI was found only to have failed to report the incident.
ASI’s position and court’s reasoning
State’s position
Appropriate punishment
ASI’s position and court’s reasoning
The ASI argued that his punishment was disproportionate because the serious bribery and misconduct charges were not proved against him.
State’s position
The state argued that the disciplinary inquiry followed the prescribed procedure and that withholding one annual increment was justified.
Different roles
ASI’s position and court’s reasoning
The court said the ASI’s limited failure to report the incident had to be assessed separately from the sub-inspector’s proven bribery and misconduct.
State’s position
The state defended the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings, which gave both employees the same penalty.
Review of earlier decisions
ASI’s position and court’s reasoning
The court found that the appellate and revisional authorities had mechanically upheld the punishment without properly explaining why the penalties should be identical.
State’s position
The state maintained that the disciplinary process gave the ASI a full opportunity to be heard.
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Judge
- Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat
- Original punishment
- Withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect
- ASI’s established role
- Failure to report the incident to superior officers
- Sub-inspector’s established role
- Bribery and misconduct
- Earlier suspension
- The ASI and two other officials were suspended on October 22, 2018
- Next step
- The disciplinary authority must issue a fresh, reasoned order after hearing the ASI