I N THE judgement of the case – Lokendra Singh Nihore v. State of Madhya Pradesh Principal Home Secretary, Bhopal and others, delivered by The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore on May 7, 2026, Justice Jai Kumar Pillai has declared that the impugned order of suspension appears to have been passed in an arbitrary, colourable and vindictive manner, leaving the Court with no option but to step in to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. If these types of stereotype orders of suspension, like in this case, are permitted to continue, then no officer would even dare to raid any premises due to fear of suspension. The petitioner Police Officer challenged before the HC the impugned suspension order passed by the respondentSuperintendent of Police, Indore (Rural) on March 11, 2026. The petitioner fundamentally seeks the relief of quashing of the order of suspension, coupled with a consequential direction commanding the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue to discharging his duties on the post of Police Station Officer, Manpur in the Indore district.

 

The petitioner is a 2007 batch Sub Inspector of Police, who claims highly decorated career, having been the recipient of more than 300 awards. The present dispute lies in the events, that transpired in the intervening night of March 10 and 11, 2026, at about 11.19 pm, while the petitioner was going through his night patrolling duties (recorded in the ‘rojnamcha’), he had received specific intelligence from an informant regarding large-scale illegal gambling activities being taking place at a secluded farmhouse known as “Kothi Niwas” situated in Gram Avlipura. It is undisputed on record that upon receiving the said intelligence, the petitioner, promptly requisitioned a search warrant, mobilised the requisite police force along with independent witnesses, and conducted a raid on the said premises. During the raid, more than 20 individuals were found indulging in illegal leading to seizure of substantial cash, mobile phones ad vehicles from the spot.

 

It subsequently emerged that the said farmhouse belonged to a sitting IAS official, presently posted as MD in the MP Finance Corporation, Indore. Immediately after the successful raid, the petitioner was subjected to immense pressure. In the opinion of the HC, the suspension is wholly disproportionate and incongruous to the alleged act or omission. Strikingly, The State had failed to place on record any specific operational directory of statutory instruction that was purportedly violated by the petitioner.

 

The justification hinges entirely on a sweeping, generalised allegation of a failure to gather intelligence, which is factually contradicted by the petitioner’s own successful intelligence-based raid. According to the HC There is absolute dearth of any prima facie material to establish moral turpitude, grave misconduct, indiscipline, or refusal to follow orders. The undisputed position on record indicates that the petitioner, acting on a informant’s tip during a routine night petrol, promptly secured a search warrant, mobilise independent witnesses and successfully executed raid, neutralising a large-scale gambling operation. Penalising a law enforcement officer for the prompt, efficient and successful execution of his statutory duties is antithetical to the very concept of ‘grave misconduct’ and shocks conscience of this Court. Furthermore, the sequence of undisputed events strongly militates against the respondents and points toward malice in law.

 

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 immediate issuance of the suspension order on the very next morning, coupled with the glaring non-application of mind evident in the simultaneous suspension of an ASI who was admittedly on sick leave and the differential treatment met 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. It is highly pertinent that the petitioner, in his writ petition has taken a clear, categorical and grave stand that his suspension was direct consequence of not honoring the undue pressure created by upon him by higher authorities to alter the crime scene. It is striking and surprising that such a serious allegation of malice leveled against the respondents has neither been specifically nor categorically rebutted by them in their reply.

 

This evasive silence further affirms the petitioner’s contention that the suspension is entirely born out of his refusal to obey illegal dictates and undue pressure. Further, scrutinising the preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondents, it is conspicuously devoid of the statements of any independent witnesses with regard to the circumstances warranting the suspension. Moreover the findings of the Enquiry Officerare inherently contradictory. On one hand, during the appreciation of facts, the Officer observes that the petitioner is not directly liable; yet, at the time of drawing the conclusion, heabruptly recommends that thepetitioner is liable to be suspended. It is also evident that the preliminary inquiry was heavily prejudiced by reliance on old cases of alleged misconduct against thepetitioner, which have absolutely no nexus with the present incident no nexus and legally ought not to have been considered for passing the impugned order.

 

The HC has pointed out that availability of alternative remedyis not a rigid mandate of law. Onthe other hand, it is a well recognised exception that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remediesis a rule , of policy, convenienceand discretion. Where theimpugned action is ex-facie arbitrary, suffers from the vice of nonapplication of mind and is completely devoid any prima faciematerial to constitute grave misconduct, relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority wouldbe an exercise in futility.

 

This is further substantiated bythe retaliatory development that after filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner was transferred. Such a vindictive actionclearly indicates that the statutory appeal would be entirely illusory and the HC does not findthat appeal would be an efficacious remedy for the petitioner. The High Court has allowed thewrit petition. The impugned order of suspension stand quashed andset aside. All consequential actionsarising there from have beenquashed.