Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokpal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12018
1
W.P. No.4754/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4754 of 2024
LOKPAL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manuraj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kusharga Jain- P.L./G.A. for the State.
ORDER
Heard finally.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
call for the record pertaining to the case and after examining
legality, validity and propriety of the same may be further pleased
to :-
1) issue appropriate writ of Certiorari or any other writ, direction
or order quashing the charge sheet dt. 16.02.2024 (Annexure P/1)
as well as suspension order dt. 05.01.2024 (Annexure P/2),
alternatively
ii) issue appropriate writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction
or order directing the respondent no.2 to keep the departmental
enquiry in abeyance,
iii) allow this petition with costs or any other relief deemed fit may
kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
3] The petitioner is aggrieved by the charge-sheet dated 16.02.2024,
issued in connection with his misconduct, as it is alleged that prior to
that, an FIR was registered against him at Crime No.02/2024, at Police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12018
Station Mahila Thana, District Ratlam. On the same set of facts, the
charge-sheet has also been issued to the petitioner.
4] The petitioner's contention is that in the criminal case as aforesaid,
he has already been acquitted by the Trial Court in S.T. No.77/2024
vide it order dated 12.09.2024, which has been filed subsequently by
the petitioner.
5] Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision
rendered by this Court in the case of Gokul Singh Mandot Vs. The
State of M.P. and Others, passed in W.P. No.39694/2014 dated
04.03.2025, wherein also, on the same set of facts, i.e., where a case
under Section 376 of the IPC was registered against the said petitioner,
he was also acquitted, and while relying upon the order of acquittal,
the termination order was quashed by this Court. It is submitted that in
the case at hand, the order of termination has not yet been passed, and
in such circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner has
already been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case arising out of the
same incident on the basis of which the charge sheet was filed, further
proceedings before the departmental enquiry be quashed.
6] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed
the prayer, however, it is not denied that the petitioner has already
been acquitted, subsequent to the filing of this petition.
7] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of
the documents filed on record, it is apparent that the charge-sheet
issued against the petitioner is on the basis of the FIR lodged against
him at Crime No.02/2024 under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 294 and 506
of the IPC, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner, by misusing his
position as a police personnel, enticed a woman, who was already
having a dispute with her husband, and thereafter, entered into a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12018
relationship with her and refused to marry, which led her to lodge the
FIR against him alleging rape.
8] It is found that so far as the judgement passed by the trial Court
dated 12.09.2024, is concerned, the prosecutrix has not supported the
case of the prosecution, and the FSL report was also negative, and
thus, the petitioner has been given a clean and honourable acquittal.
9] In such facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking note of
the order passed by this Court in the case of Gokul Singh Mandot
(Supra), in which, this Court has also relied upon the decisions
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of
Gujarat, reported as (2006) 5 SCC 446, as also Ramlal Vs. State of
Rajasthan, reported as (2024) 1 SCC 175, it has been observed as
under:-
20. So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for
the petitioner in the case of GM Tank (supra) is concerned,
the relevant paras of the same read as under :-
"31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as
well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota
of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is
usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the
basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the
instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was
found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable
acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings
challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the
decision in Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S)
810] will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant
deserves to be allowed.
32. In the instant case, the appellant joined the respondent in the year
1953. He was suspended from service on 8-2-1979 and got subsistence
allowance of Rs 700 p.m. i.e. 50% of the salary. On 15-10-1982 dismissal
order was passed. The appellant had put in 26 years of service with the
respondent i.e. from 1953-1979. The appellant would now superannuate
in February 1986. On the basis of the same charges and the evidence, the
department passed an order of dismissal on 21-10-1982 whereas the
criminal court acquitted him on 30-1-2002. However, as the criminal
court acquitted the appellant on 30-1-2002 and until such acquittal, there
was no reason or ground to hold the dismissal to be erroneous, any relief
monetarily can be only w.e.f. 30-1-2002. But by then, the appellant had
retired, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order of dismissal
without back wages. The appellant would be entitled to pension.
33. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the judgment and order
dated 28-1-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12018
Application No. 948 of 1983 as affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA
No. 1085 of 2002 and allow this appeal. However, there shall be no order
as to costs."
21. Whereas in the case of Ram Lal (supra) the relevant paras
read as:-
"28. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably acquitted",
used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court
of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In
the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the
original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same
has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding
was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at
after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial
review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by
the form of expression used.
29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the
criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was
not just, "not proved" -- in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the
very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be
"disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either
believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable
that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case,
to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not
proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved"
30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the
Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed
thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but
identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the
same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the
orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as
allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is
very similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of
Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] .
xxxxxxxx
33. In view of the above, we declare that the order of termination
dated 31-3-2004; the order of the appellate authority dated 8-10-2004;
the orders dated 29-3-2008 and 25-6-2008 refusing to reconsider and
review the penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable.
34. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of DB Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 484 of 2011 dated 5-9-2018 [Ram Lal Choudhary v. State of
Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3031] . We direct that the appellant
shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including seniority,
notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits. As far as
back wages are concerned, we are inclined to award the appellant 50% of
the back wages. The directions be complied with within a period of four
weeks from today."
(emphasis supplied)
22. On perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court in
S.T.No. 122/2023 dated 23/10/2024, and the decision rendered
by the Supreme Court in the cases of GM Tank (supra) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12018
Ramlal (Supra), this Court finds that not only that the
prosecution in the present case has miserably failed to bring
home the guilt of the petitioner, but the trial Court has also
found the deposition of the prosecutrix untrustworthy.
23. In such circumstances, when the charges in the departmental
enquiry against the petitioner were only of keeping in touch with
the complainant, and also of assault, whereas, the charge of
assault was also framed against the petitioner in the criminal
trial and was found to be false, this Court is of the considered
opinion that any penalty much less the penalty of dismissal from
service was totally uncalled for, and although it is true that the
petitioner is in police service and it is expected of him to behave
as per the ethics of police service, however, the criminal trial has
brought out the falsity of the charges levelled against him.
24. In view of the same, the impugned orders dated dated
30.5.2024 and 20.11.2024 (P/1 & P/2) are hereby quashed, and
the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner in service and grant all the consequential
benefits including the monitory benefits. Let the aforesaid
exercise be completed within a further period of three months.
25. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Emphasis Supplied)
10] In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to come to
a conclusion that the case of the petitioner is identical to that of Gokul
Singh Mandot (supra). Thus, taking note of the decision of the trial
Court, wherein the petitioner has already been acquitted on the same
set of allegations, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition,
and accordingly, the impugned charge-sheet issued against the
petitioner, is hereby quashed.
11] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
