Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma, dismissed a writ appeal filed by a former Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who had challenged his dismissal from service following a departmental inquiry. The court held that an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not prevent an employer from conducting departmental proceedings on the same charges, as both operate in distinct legal domains with different standards of proof and objectives. The misconduct — involving abduction and looting of gold beyond jurisdictional limits — was found proved through cogent evidence gathered independently during the departmental inquiry.

The matter arose from a writ appeal filed by a police officer challenging the dismissal of his writ petition seeking quashing of an order terminating him from service after a departmental inquiry. The appellant was working as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and was posted at Police Station Raghogarh in District Guna, Madhya Pradesh. During the intervening night of 07–08 May 2011, the appellant along with other police personnel allegedly deboarded a passenger from the Rajdhani Express at Kota Railway Station, abducted him and looted about 4072.700 grams of gold from him. A criminal case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 365, 392 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and a departmental inquiry was also initiated on the basis of a charge sheet.

Also Read: S.133 Contract Act | Guarantor's Liability Capped At Originally Sanctioned Loan Amount; Surety Not Bound By Borrower's Excess Withdrawals Made Without Consent : Supreme Court

The criminal trial concluded with the acquittal of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota on 30 June 2016 after several prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Despite the acquittal, the departmental inquiry proceeded and resulted in the dismissal of the appellant from service on 11 May 2021. His mercy petition before the appellate authority was also rejected.

The appellant challenged the dismissal before the High Court contending that the departmental action could not survive after his acquittal and that he had not been given sufficient opportunity during the inquiry. The State authorities submitted that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and that the charges were proved on the basis of evidence available on record.

The Court examined the relationship between criminal proceedings and departmental disciplinary proceedings and referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue.

The Court observed “No bar exits on both proceedings continuing simultaneously, though in an appropriate, separate forum.” It further noted “If said proceedings are on identical/similar facts and if the charges levied against the delinquent employee are of a serious nature, then it would be desirable if the departmental proceedings are stayed till the conclusion of the other.”

At the same time, the Court recorded that disciplinary proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely, stating “It must be remembered that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly and unjustly delayed.”

Addressing the effect of criminal acquittal on disciplinary proceedings, the Court noted the distinction between the two processes and quoted the legal position that “the nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding.”

The Bench also examined the nature of the acquittal granted to the appellant and observed that it was based on benefit of doubt after witnesses turned hostile, which cannot be treated as an honourable acquittal.

The Court also explained the limits of judicial review in disciplinary matters and stated “The jurisdiction of High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to examine the decision making process rather then to act as a Court of appeal to substitute it's own decisions.”

On examining the departmental inquiry record, the Court noted that charges had been framed, witnesses were examined, documentary evidence was considered and the appellant had been provided opportunity to file a written statement and cross-examine witnesses.

Referring to the nature of the police service, the Court also quoted “the police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in society. People repose great faith and confidence in it.”

Also Read: 'Serious Penal Provisions Cannot Be Invoked As Instruments Of Retaliation In Personal Discord': MP High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment FIR Against Govt Employee Citing Doubtful Allegations

The Court recorded: “although the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal trial after giving benefit of doubt, but the acquittal of appellant cannot be treated as honorable acquittal.”

It further stated: “Departmental inquiry in detail has been conducted against him after following principles of natural justice and sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant.”

The Bench directed: “the impugned order passed by the writ Court appears to be just and proper. Learned writ Court has not committed any illegality or any perversity while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Mohd. Amir Khan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri Ravindra Dixit, Government Advocate

Case Title: Sultan Singh Nagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-GWL:7440

Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma