"Vindictive": MP High Court Quashes Suspension Of Cop Who Raided IAS Officer's Farmhouse Over Gambling Allegations

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the suspension of a police officer who raided a farmhouse allegedly involved in an illegal gambling racket, later found to belong to a serving IAS officer, observing that the suspension was arbitrary and vindictive rather than based on administrative exigency.The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed; "The immediate issuance of the suspension order on the very next morning, coupled with the glaring non-application of mind... and the differential treatment meted out to the SHO of Simrol Police Station under identical circumstances, undeniably exposes a 'pick and choose' policy driven by a vindictive mindset rather than administrative exigency". Per the facts, the petitioner, a 2007 Sub Inspector, was posted as Police Station Incharge in Manpur. On the night of March 10-11, 2026, while on routine night patrol, he received intelligence about illegal gambling at a farmhouse called Kothi Niwas. He obtained a search warrant and conducted a raid, catching over 20 people gambling. He also seized cash, phones and vehicles; however, the farmhouse belonged to a serving IAS officer. After the raid, the petitioner was pressured to alter the FIR or conceal the location, but when he refused and registered the FIR accurately, the authorities suspended him on March 11, 2026, by the Superintendent of Police, Indore. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the suspension order. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the actions of the respondents were arbitrary, illegal and a classic example of abuse of administrative power. The counsel also highlighted another incident of March 2026, where a gambling racket was busted by Simrol Police Station, but no such punitive action was taken against the Station House Officer. The counsel for the State argued that the petitioner was suspended strictly on account of his failure to comply with the general directions issued by higher authorities regarding the curbing of illegal activities and strengthening of intelligence gathering. The court, relying on the case of M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines [1999 INSC 139], reiterated certain guidelines regarding suspension, including Ordinarily, the court will not interfere, but in cases they do, there is no standardised formula, and each case is considered strictly on its own facts. The court will intervene only if the administrative decision is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or shocks the conscienceJudicial review is strictly made out of charges that are baseless, actuated by mala fides, or framed merely to keep the employee jobless. The court will interfere if the order lacks even prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee to misconduct. Considering the aforesaid guidelines, the court noted that in the present case, the suspension order suffers from "gross legal infirmity". The court noted that the suspension was wholly disproportionate and incongruous. The bench expressed shock over the failure of the State to place any specific operation directive or statutory instruction that was violated by the petitioner. The bench noted that the entire justification hinges on a sweeping generalised allegation of failure to gather intelligence, which is further disputed by the petitioner's own intelligence-based raid. The court further expressed displeasure over the fact that an enforcement officer was penalised for prompt, efficient and successful execution of his duties. The bench highlighted, "The petitioner, despite facing immense external pressure to suppress the identity of the crime scene being the private farmhouse of an IAS officer, demonstrated unwavering integrity by ensuring the FIR reflected the true and correct facts". The bench thus held that the impugned order prima facie appeared to have been passed in an arbitrary and vindictive manner, and the same cannot be permitted to continue, as no officer in the future would dare to raid any premises due to fear of suspension. Therefore, the bench allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the impugned suspension order. Case Title: Lokendera Singh Hihore v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 10092/2026For Petitioner: Advocate Mini RavindranFor State: Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Bhargav with Deputy General Advocate Kushagra SinghClick here to read/download the Order

"Vindictive": MP High Court Quashes Suspension Of Cop Who Raided IAS Officer's Farmhouse Over Gambling Allegations

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags