The Madhya Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on the State police administration for suspending a sub-inspector who led a gambling raid at a farmhouse linked to a senior IAS officer, warning that such actions could cripple honest policing.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, while setting aside the suspension of Indore Rural police station in-charge Lokendra Singh Hihore, observed that punishing officers for carrying out lawful raids would create a climate where no officer would dare act against influential individuals for fear of retaliation.
The Court described the suspension order issued on March 11 as appearing “arbitrary, vindictive and colorable” at first glance. It remarked that the manner in which the action was taken raised troubling questions about the intent behind the disciplinary move.
Hihore, a sub-inspector from the 2007 batch, had conducted a late-night raid on March 10-11 at a farmhouse in Gram Avlipura after receiving intelligence inputs about illegal gambling. The operation reportedly led to the detention of more than 20 individuals and the seizure of cash, mobile phones and vehicles.
During the proceedings, it emerged that the property belonged to an IAS officer serving as Managing Director of the MP Finance Corporation in Indore. Hihore told the Court that pressure was mounted on him to avoid mentioning the actual location of the raid in official records so that the farmhouse owner’s identity could remain concealed. He alleged that after he insisted on recording the true facts in the FIR, suspension followed almost immediately.
The High Court noted that instead of yielding to pressure, the officer ensured the FIR accurately reflected the raid location. The Bench said this demonstrated integrity rather than misconduct.
The Court also pointed to what it called a glaring lack of application of mind in the disciplinary exercise. One Assistant Sub-Inspector was suspended despite being on medical leave at the relevant time. In contrast, another station house officer who had conducted a similar raid elsewhere faced no such action.
According to the Bench, this selective treatment exposed a “pick-and-choose” approach driven more by vendetta than administrative necessity.
The State government defended the suspension by arguing that Hihore had failed to curb illegal activities and had not adequately strengthened intelligence collection. The Court, however, found the argument self-defeating, noting that the gambling bust itself was the result of successful intelligence gathering.
Justice Pillai observed that the State failed to identify any operational guideline or statutory rule violated by the officer during the raid.
The Bench said penalising an officer for effectively carrying out his legal duties was wholly incompatible with the idea of “grave misconduct” and described the action as one that shocked the conscience of the Court.
The Court further criticised the preliminary enquiry conducted against Hihore, observing that it relied on unrelated past allegations having no connection to the present episode. It also flagged contradictions in the enquiry officer’s findings, noting that while the report initially stated Hihore was not directly responsible, it later inexplicably recommended suspension.
With those findings, the Court quashed the suspension order.
