Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Singh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15968
1 WP-3480-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 3480 of 2014
ARJUN SINGH RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M P S Raghuwanshi -Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K S Tomar - GA for respondent/State.
Reserved on : 22/07/2025
Pronounced on : 01/08/2025
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner being aggrieved the order dated 19.07.2013 passed by
respondent No.4 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated after
conducting departmental enquiry.
2. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2013
passed by respondent No.3 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the said order was rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the
order dated 03.05.2014 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the second
appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was
appointed as constable on 19-07-2002 and he was posted in 18th Batalian,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15968
2 WP-3480-2014
SAF, Shivpuri (M.P.). After appointment, the petitioner with due sincerity
and honesty had discharged his duties in accordance with the directions
issued by the superior Authorities. Considering the same during his service
tenure the petitioner had received 42 rewards and 2 minor punishments. In
May 2012, the petitioner was posted at Itarsi Railway Station. On 11-05-
2012, a criminal case bearing crime no. 403/2013 under section 376, 507,
576 of IPC was registered against him at Police Station Madhavnagar
District Ujjain and he was taken into the policy custody. The information to
that effect was communicated by the Superintendent of Police Ujjain, to the
commandant 18th Battalion Shivpuri. Consequently, the petitioner was
placed under suspension vide order dated 14-05-2012. The aforesaid
suspension order was revoked vide order dated. 10-08-2012. Thereafter,
respondent had issued a letter dated 07-07-2012 directing the petitioner to
appear on duty. After obtaining bail in the aforesaid case, the petitioner gave
his joining at the respondent Head Quarter on 24-07-2012 and after
conducting the preliminary enquiry, Shri S.K. Tiwari Asstt. Commandant
submitted his preliminary enquiry report dated 05-07-2012. The disciplinary
authority thereafter issued show cause notice to the petitioner and called
reply, being unsatisfied, on the basis of aforesaid inquiry framed two charges
against him, the details thereof are reproduced herein-below:-
A. That, the petitioner at the time of posting at GRP Polish Station
Itarsi after contacting a woman on phone had absconded from his
duty to meet her at Ujjain where a disputed situation arose, on its
basis, a criminal case at crime no. 403/2012 under section 376,
507 of IPC was registered and he was taken into police custody on
11-05-2012, hence the petitioner degraded the police reputation
and had acted contrary to para 64 (4) and (5) of police regulation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15968
3 WP-3480-2014
B. That, the petitioner without any prior intimation remained
unauthorizedly absent from 11-05-2012 up till 27-07-2012 and
therefore by absconding for 75 days, he has committed gross
negligence against his duties.
4. In the departmental enquiry, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses
whereon the petitioner was given an opportunity of cross-examination.
During departmental enquiry, the criminal trial was also proceeded
simultaneously before the Learned Session Judge, Ujjain, in which, on the
basis of evidence put forth by the prosecution, the learned trial Court vide
order dated 10-10-2012 acquitted the petitioner in session case no. 357/2012
instituted on the basis of crime no. 403/2012. The enquiring officer
submitted his enquiry report dated 29-04-2013 wherein he had found the
charges against the petitioner to be proved. The aforesaid enquiry report was
communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 03-06-2013 The petitioner
submitted his detailed reply against the aforesaid enquiry report and refuted
the charges levied against him but the respondent did not consider the facts
and grounds mentioned in the reply to the enquiry report and passed the
order dated 19-07-2013 by which the petitioner was terminated from the
service. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19-07-2013, the present petition
has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a person is
taken into a legal custody, he can only be released on obtaining bail from the
competent court and the petitioner after obtaining the bail approached the
headquarter and submitted his joining. In such circumstances, the absence of
the petitioner from his duty could be attributed to the facts beyond his
control and therefore he can not be held responsible for an unauthorized
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15968
4 WP-3480-2014
absence of 75 days.
6. It is further submitted that he had submitted his detailed reply
against the aforesaid enquiry report and refuted the charges levied against
him but the respondent did not consider the facts and ground mentioned in
reply to the enquiry report and in an arbitrary manner passed the order dated
19-07-2013 by which the petitioner was dismissed from the services.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in
the criminal case and his unauthorized absence due to his custody on account
of false criminal case could be attributed to the conditions beyond his
control, therefore, the punishment of termination is highly disproportional.
Thus, it is prayed that the impugned orders dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure P/1),
03.10.2013 (Annexure P/2) and 03.05.2014 (Annexure P/3) be quashed and
respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential
benefits.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the
charges in the departmental enquiry were distinct and independent from the
allegations in the criminal case and primarily pertained to unauthorized
absence from duty which is a serious misconduct for a member of the
disciplined force. The acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case was
considered by the disciplinary authority, but that could not exonerate the
petitioner from the charge of indiscipline and dereliction of duty. The
departmental proceedings are governed by preponderance of probabilities
and not strict proof as in criminal trials, thus, prayed for dismissal of present
petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15968
5 WP-3480-2014
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. From perusal of record, it is evident that initially the petitioner was
appointed as Constable on 19-07-2002 and he was posted in 18th Batalian,
SAF, Shivpuri (M.P.). On 11-05-2012, the petitioner was implicated in a
criminal case bearing crime no. 403/2013 under section 376, 507, 576 of IPC
registered at Police Station Madhavnagar District Ujjain and in persuance
thereto he was taken into custody. He remained in custody and was placed
under suspension vide order 14.05.2012 which was subsequently revoked
vide order 10.08.2012. After trial, he was acquitted by the Sessions Court
vide judgment dated 10.10.2012. Separately, a departmental enquiry was
initiated against the petitioner on the charges of unauthorized absence from
duty for a prolonged period of 75 days and his implication in aforesaid
criminal case. The charge-sheet alleged that the petitioner absented himself
from duty without any prior permission or subsequent justification for the
period from 11.05.2012 to 24.07.2012. An Enquiry Officer was appointed,
and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the service rules. The
petitioner was afforded full opportunity to participate. The charges were
found proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report
and the petitioner's reply, passed the order of dismissal which was
subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authorities.
11. The charges in the departmental enquiry are independent and relate
primarily to unauthorized absence and misconduct, which adversely affects
the discipline and integrity expected from a Police Personnel. The law is well
settled that departmental proceedings can proceed independently of criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15968
6 WP-3480-2014
proceedings and may result in a different outcome. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony
v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held:
"There is no bar for the employer to initiate departmental
proceedings even when criminal proceedings are pending, unless
the charges are exactly identical and arise out of the same set of
facts."
12. In the case of Union of India Vs. Bihari Lal Sindhana reported in
(1997) 4 SCC 385, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that acquittal in
criminal case does not automatically nullify the findings of a departmental
enquiry unless the charges are identical and the findings in both proceedings
are irreconcilable.
13. In Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram , (2013) 1
SCC 598, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-
"The standard of proof required in a departmental enquiry is not
the same as in a criminal trial. Acquittal by a criminal court does
not automatically entitle an employee for reinstatement."
14 In State of Bihar and Ors v. Phulpari Kumari, (2020) 2 SCC 130,
the Supreme Court held as under:
"6.1 It is settled law that interference with the orders passed
pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of "no
evidence". Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of
judicial review. The standard of proof as required in a criminal
trial is not the same in a departmental inquiry. Strict rules of
evidence are to be followed by the criminal court where the guilt
of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the
other hand, preponderance of probabilities is the test adopted in
finding the delinquent guilty of the charge."
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Of Haryana And Anr.
vs Rattan Singh reported in AIR1977 SC 1512 in Para 4 has held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15968
7 WP-3480-2014
4. .... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of
evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All
materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are
permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it
has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental
authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in
evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is
strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For
this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books,
although we have been taken through case-law and other
authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial
approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or
considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of
course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias
or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions
reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot
be held good. ..."
16. The respondent No.4 after discussing the available and admissible
evidence on the charges and considering the judgment of acquittal of
petitioner dated 10.10.2012 had passed the impugned order dated 19.07.2013
(Annexure P/1), therefore, it is not at all open to this Court to re- appreciate
the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as
the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court.
17. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Man Mohan Nath Sinha,
(2009) 8 SCC 310, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under:-
'15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial
review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the
decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on
merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to
reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry
officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as
a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the instant
case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence
as if it was a court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in
consideration of the matter suffers from manifest error and, in our
thoughtful consideration, the matter requires fresh consideration
by the High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground,
we send the matter back to the High Court.'
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15968
8 WP-3480-2014
18. In the light of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this
Court, as the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authorities had taken into
consideration, all the material aspects and had rightly reached to the
conclusion that the order of removal from service is a fit and proper
punishment to be imposed on the petitioner.
19. In view of above, no case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
