MP High Court: Families Shouldn't Suffer For Constables' Alleged Misdeeds, Allows 50% Salary Withdrawal

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a group of police constables accused in a Travel Allowance (TA) scam to withdraw fifty percent of their salaries from frozen bank accounts, while making clear that the criminal investigation and departmental proceedings against them will continue unaffected.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma passed the order on August 21 while partly allowing a writ appeal filed by Astik Shukla and other constables and head constables posted with the 6th Battalion, Special Armed Force (SAF), Jabalpur, whose salary accounts were frozen after they were named in an alleged financial fraud.

According to the order, the State Finance Intelligence Cell (SFIC) had flagged massive irregularities in the processing of online TA bills within the battalion in November 2025. An internal probe found that the fraud was allegedly masterminded by Satyam Sharma, an Assistant Sub-Inspector posted as in-charge of the TA branch, along with his assistant Abhishek Jharia, who has since died. The court recorded that the two allegedly misused their access, generated fake electronic TA bills, obtained OTPs while keeping senior officers unaware, and routed the funds into the salary accounts of thirteen constables, including the appellants.

Once an FIR was registered and the Crime Branch began investigating, accounts of constables suspected of having been used as conduits, or "mule accounts," for the proceeds of the fraud were frozen, including their salary accounts. The order noted that some constables who deposited back the diverted amounts had their accounts unfrozen, but the appellants had not done so, leaving their accounts, and their salaries, blocked.

The constables had approached the High Court seeking to have their accounts reopened so they could withdraw their salaries for subsistence, arguing they were struggling to make ends meet without any income. Their writ petition was dismissed, prompting the present appeal.

Advocate Adwitya Parasher, appearing for the appellants, argued at length that the constables be permitted to operate their accounts and undertook that they would restrict withdrawals to their salary amounts alone. As an alternative, he sought permission for the constables to withdraw fifty percent of their salaries for subsistence.

Government Advocate Piyush Jain, appearing for the State, opposed the plea, submitting that a departmental enquiry had already been initiated against the appellants and a show-cause notice issued. He told the court that the FIR had been registered and the Crime Branch was investigating what he described as "a case of high-level scam where criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery is involved," and that hundreds of TA bills meant for other employees had allegedly been diverted for personal gain. He urged that the appeal be dismissed.

Weighing the submissions, the bench observed that the alleged offence was "a technology driven crime, allegedly committed by miscreants who are facing wrath of investigation," and directed the police department and the SAF to conduct a "deep probe" so that no culprit is spared and such crimes are not repeated in government departments.

On the question of subsistence, the court held that the appellants' families should not be made to suffer merely because of the alleged misconduct of the accused constables. It permitted withdrawal of fifty percent of the frozen salary amount, explaining that if a constable's total salary is Rs 100, only Rs 50 can be withdrawn, with no further withdrawals allowed until the investigation or trial concludes, or until a competent court decides otherwise.

The bench clarified that this relief could be withdrawn if the liberty is misused, and made it clear that the appellants must cooperate fully in both the departmental proceedings and the criminal investigation without delay. It emphasised that the relief was purely equitable and would not affect or prejudice the ongoing departmental or criminal proceedings in any manner.

With these directions, the writ appeal was partly allowed and disposed of, and the earlier order modified to that extent, permitting the limited salary withdrawal.

Case Title: Astik Shukla and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: August 21, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma