Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navneet Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26434 of 2019
NAVNEET SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate with Shri Siddharth Kumar
Sharma- Advocate for petitioner.
Dr. S.S. Chouhan - Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Aditya Adhikari - Senior Advocate with Ms. Divya Pal -
Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.
Reserved on - 23.04.2025
Pronounced on - 06 .05.2025
ORDER
Per: Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
impugned order dated 28.9.2019 (Annexure P/12) as well
as the recommendation of the Administrative Committee
and decision of the full Court (Annexure P/11) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, in
the interest of justice.
(ii) That, in the alternative and without prejudice this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reconsider the
punishment of removal from service of the petitioner and
grant lesser/proportionate punishment, in the interest of
justice.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along
with cost of the petition."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the
post of Civil Judge, Class-II on 15.3.2011 and he was confirmed in the
year 2014. On 17.06.2018 when he was travelling in Overnight Express
in Coach No.A-1, Berth No.27 some altercation took place and it was
alleged that petitioner was in a drunken state, he had misbehaved and
harassed the co-passengers and also undertaken obscene activities.
Petitioner was arrested in the intervening night of 17.06.2018 and
18.06.2018 and since the offence was bailable, he was immediately
released on bail. On account of the aforesaid incident, petitioner was
issued show cause notice dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure-P/1 and Annexure
P/2). The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause
notices along with his medical report and denied the allegations made in
the show cause notice.
3. The petitioner was also prosecuted under Section 145 of the
Railway Act, 1989 for the same set of charges and allegations leveled in
the show cause notice and after a detailed trial, the learned Special
Railway Magistrate Jabalpur vide judgment dated 23.3.2019 (Annexure
P/5) acquitted the petitioner as none of the allegations leveled against the
petitioner were found to be proved.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
4. The petitioner was again issued show cause notice dated 6.9.2018
(Annexure P/6) along with articles of charge and preliminary enquiry
report. The charges leveled against the petitioner read as under :-
"(I) That, you, knowingly and willfully remained out of
headquarters on the 16 and 17 June, 2018, without seeking any
prior permission or without any intimation to your immediate
Controlling Officers or the District Judge. Your such act
amounts to misconduct under Rule 7 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1965 which is in violation of instruction of
High Court vide DO Letter No.68 dated 17-01-1996.
(II) That, you were telling to co-passengers that you are a
Judge and you have shown your identity card being a Judicial
Officer. While returning from Bhopal to Jabalpur on 16th June,
2018, being a passenger of Berth No.27 of Coach A-1, in Indore-
Jabalpur Overnight Express (Train No.22191), had consumed
liquor and created nuisance in the state of intoxication and
misbehaved and abused your co-passengers, conductor/TTE Shri
A.B. Katare who was on duty at the relevant time and thereby
caused hindrance to the public servant in discharge of his
official duties. Due to your nuisance, passengers had to pull the
chain and thus the train was delayed, your such acts amount to
misconduct and unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.
(III) That, you, were telling to co-passengers that you are a
Judge and you have shown your identity card. In the state of
intoxication, in the aforesaid train, you attempted to urinate on
the Berth of a nearby passenger Mrs. Jyoti, travelling on Berth
No.29, however, on her screaming, you ultimately urinated in
front of her berth, thereby, creating (fear in the mind of the
concerned lady passenger and other passengers. You, in such a
way, committed an indecent, obscene and overt act by showing
your private part in the train compartment which amounts to a
misconduct and unbecoming of Judicial Officer.
(IV) That, during the aforesaid journey, under the state of
intoxication, you created nuisance and Crime No 376/18 u/S 145
of Railway Act was registered against you and you were
arrested. You have concealed the fact about your arrest in a
criminal case from your District Judge or the High Court which
is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
(V) That, you have also violated the 'Restatement of Values of
Judicial Life 1999 (Para 16) adopted for the Judicial Officers
vide Full Court Resolution dated 8th July, 2000 and your
conduct is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer."
The petitioner filed reply dated 29.09.2018 (Annexure-P/7) to the
memo of charges and denied all the charges leveled against him. The
petitioner faced the departmental enquiry and denied all the charges and
cross examined all the material witnesses in the departmental enquiry.
Thereafter, the enquiry officer vide inquiry report dated 23.4.2019 found
the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply/objection dated
17.5.2019 (Annexure P/10) to the enquiry report and refuted each and
every allegation leveled against him. The enquiry report and the objection
of the petitioner was placed before Administrative Committee of the
Hon'ble High Court, however the Administrative Committee proposed the
punishment of removal from service and the same has been approved by
the Full Court of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide its
recommendation by circulation dated 24.9.2019. In compliance of the
recommendation of the Full Court, services of the petitioner have been
terminated vide impugned order dated 28.09.2019 (Annexure-P/12).
Hence, the present petition has been filed.
6. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their reply wherein they
have stated that the untoward incident was brought in the notice through a
newspaper publication dated 18.06.2018 and information received from
various authorities such as Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur,
Principal Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Jabalpur. Therefore, show
cause notice dated 25.06.2018 and 29.06.2018 were issued to him. It is
matter of great consideration that the petitioner was arrested in the
intervening night of 17.06.2018 and 18.06.2018, and till date no such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
information was given by him for such arrest to his superiors. Neither any
information was given by him that he was leaving headquarters nor any
permission to the same was taken. It is submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner are far more serious than he acknowledges. Bare
perusal of the charge sheet and the show cause notice would indicate the
severity of the situation and unbecoming conduct of any citizen herein a
judicial officer of the Court.
7. The respondents have further submitted that acquittal of the
petitioner from the criminal case was based on technicalities and the
petitioner was in no way honorably acquitted. It is also submitted that the
both criminal case and departmental enquiry operates in different spheres,
and finding of one is not binding on the other nor they can influence the
other as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar
Nag vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia &
Ors, reported in 2005 (7) SCC 764.
8. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer found all the
charges to be proved and held guilty of the charges leveled against the
petitioner. The petitioner has not been found guilty on the basis of
surmises and conjectures. The enquiry report and the reply/representation
dated 17.05.2019 of the petitioner was placed before the Administrative
Committee and after considering the same, the Committee taken a
decision to remove the petitioner from his services, which was later on
approved by the Full Court vide its recommendation dated 24.09.2019.
Hence, in view of the fact that while conducting departmental enquiry,
petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing, the appropriate
punishment has been awarded to the petitioner and there is no occasion of
interference by this Hon'ble Court and therefore, the present petition is
liable to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
9. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply and refuted all the
averments made in the reply. It is submitted in the rejoinder that the
contents of the reply are misconceived and meritless. Thus, the order
impugned and the penalty inflicted cannot be justified. Regard being had
to the conduct of the petitioner, the respondents could have resorted to
other minor penalties contemplated under the service rules. In view of the
aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
held guilty of misconduct and all five charges leveled against him are
held proved by the Inquiry Officer recording perverse findings in the
enquiry report. The witnesses gave their testimony; however, leading
prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution
Case. Despite that the Iqnuiry Officer, on the basis of preliminary enquiry
report, concluded the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the enquiry
report was placed before the Administrative Committee and the said
Committee taken a decision for termination of services of the petitioner
and the Full Court approved the said punishment. However, some of the
Hon'ble Judges have made dissenting notes regarding harshness of
punishment and also, the lack of cogent evidence in respect of proving of
charges. Despite of dissenting notes of some of the Hon'ble Judges, the
impugned major punishment order of removal from Service under Rule
10 (viii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966, passed by the respondent no. 1, in most arbitrary manner.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner left the headquarters on account of sudden illness of his father,
for which, the petitioner left an application addressed to District and
Sessions Judge, Dindori, with Arun Kumar Marawi on 16.06.2018.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
However, the same was not placed before the District and Sessions Judge
by Arun Kumar Marawi, which has been admitted by him in his
Statement. Further the delay in the medical examination is not
attributable to the petitioner and thus, there is no evidence of him being in
an inebriated state. Moreover, he cannot be made to suffer on account of
lapses in the investigation.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that prosecution
witnesses themselves did not support the prosecution case and hence, due
to a case of want of evidence, the petitioner was acquitted on merits by
the learned Special Railway Magistrate Jabalpur vide judgment dated
23.3.2019 (Annexure P/5). The findings of the preliminary enquiry
cannot be the basis of conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. However,
the respondents by considering the testimony of witnesses supporting the
prosecution case in the preliminary enquiry and by overlooking the fact
that some of the witnesses turned hostile and no evidence is on record to
prove the prosecution case, the Inquiry Officer has found guilty the
petitioner of the charges leveled against him.
14. At last learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the
charges leveled against the petitioner are accepted in toto then also any
other punishment may be awarded to the petitioner than the major
punishment of removal from service, as some of the Hon'ble Judges in the
Full Court have made dissenting notes regarding the said punishment due
to lack of cogent evidence in respect of proving of charges. In view of the
above submissions, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.
15. Mr. Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondents/High Court submitted that charges leveled against the
petitioner are grave in nature. The petitioner has misused the power of his
post and was intoxicated and undertook certain obscene activities in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
public. The petitioner as a judicial officer is expected to maintain high
degree of values and is also expected not to indulge in any act or
omission which is unbecoming of the high office he holds. Learned
Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner was arrested in the
intervening night of 17.06.2018 and 18.06.2018 and since his offence was
bailable therefore, he was immediately released on bail. Since the
petitioner was released on bail and he did not inform his superiors about
the same. Moreover there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner
had any previous enmity with the Ticket Collector, passengers of his
coach or with any witness to suggest that the false case has been
embellished against the petitioner due to previous enmity.
16. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the acquittal of the
petitioner from the criminal case was based on technicalities and he was
in no way honorably acquitted. It is also submitted that both criminal case
and departmental enquiry operates in different spheres, and finding of one
is not binding on the other nor they can influence the other. Learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that the departmental enquiry has been
conducted as per law, wherein the petitioner was granted full opportunity
of hearing and after considering all the evidence on record, the Inquiry
Officer has submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The
petitioner has not pointed out any illegality or irregularity committed in
the inquiry proceedings. The enquiry report and the reply dated
17.05.2019 of the petitioner were placed before the Administrative
Committee. The Committee considered the same and taken a decision to
remove the petitioner from his service, which was approved by the Full
Court vide its recommendation dated 24.09.2019. At last learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is to the
proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. He had misbehaved
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
with co-passengers and created nuisance in public under the intoxication.
It is not expected from a judicial officer, who has to maintain high degree
of values. Hence, this petition be dismissed with cost.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
17. The core allegation against the petitioner is that, while returning
from Bhopal to Jabalpur on 16.06.2018 as a passenger occupying Berth
No. 27 in Coach A-1 of the Indore-Jabalpur Overnight Express (Train
No. 22191), he consumed liquor and, in a state of intoxication, created a
nuisance, misbehaved with, and abused co-passengers as well as the
conductor/TTE, Shri A.B. Katare, who was on duty at the relevant time,
thereby obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his official duties.
Due to the nuisance caused by the petitioner, passengers were compelled
to pull the emergency chain, resulting in a delay of the train. Such
conduct was deemed to constitute misconduct and behavior unbecoming
of a judicial officer. It is further alleged that the petitioner, while
intoxicated, displayed his identity card and urinated on the berth of a
nearby passenger, Mrs. Jyoti, who was traveling on Berth No. 29. Based
on complaints received from passengers, the petitioner was de-boarded
from the train at Pipariya, and Crime No. 379/2018 was registered against
him under Section 145 of the Railways Act.
18. However the key witnesses i.e. Amit Kumar (PW-1) Jyoti
Benjamin (PW-3) have not supported the case even they did not identify
the petitioner. Shri Awadh Bihari Katare (PW-5) TTE/Conductor has also
not supported the case. After appreciating the evidence came on record,
the learned Special Railway Magistrate acquitted the petitioner under
Section 145 of the Railway Act.
19. The learned Magistrate recorded that there is no medical evidence
on record which confirmed alcohol consumption including the evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
of complainant herself. The MLC also did not reveal the presence of
alcohol in the petitioner's system. A departmental inquiry was ordered
based on media reports and alleged public embarrassment to the
institution. However, the matter was placed before the Full Court, and the
petitioner was terminated.
The issue before this Court for consideration is:
(i) Whether the termination of the petitioner,
despite acquittal by a criminal court and absence of
supporting evidence, is legally sustainable?
20. In the present case, the acquittal of the petitioner by the learned
Special Railway Magistrate was not merely on technical grounds or for
want of prosecution, rather, it was a result of a thorough appreciation of
the evidence on record. The key prosecution witnesses, including the
alleged victim, did not support the prosecution case and categorically
failed to identify the petitioner. Moreover, there was no medical or
forensic evidence establishing that the petitioner had consumed alcohol or
was in a state of intoxication at the relevant time. The MLC report was
silent on the presence of alcohol in his system. In such a scenario, the
learned Magistrate came to a clear conclusion that the prosecution failed
to establish the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 145 of
the Railways Act and, accordingly, acquitted the petitioner. Therefore,
the acquittal in the criminal case was not a mere extension of benefit of
doubt, but a categorical finding based on the absence of incriminating
evidence and the failure of the prosecution to substantiate the allegations.
This acquittal, coupled with the lack of any fresh or independent material
in the departmental enquiry, casts serious doubt on the sustainability of
the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
21 In case of Ram Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan (2024) 1 SCC 175
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the Effect of Acquittal in the
Criminal Proceeding
"24. What is important to notice is that the Appellate Judge has
clearly recorded that in the document Exh. P-3 - original
marksheet of the 8th standard, the date of birth was clearly
shown as 21.04.1972 and the other documents produced by the
prosecution were either letters or a duplicate marksheet. No
doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it becomes
doubtful whether the date of birth was 21.04.1974 and that the
accused was entitled to receive its benefit. However, what we
are supposed to see is the substance of the judgment. A reading
of the entire judgment clearly indicates that the appellant was
acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence
and after noticing that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charge.
25. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honorably
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 Exh. P-3, the original
marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 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."
22. In the present case, on the basis of media reports, show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was
initiated. When both criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings
arise from the same incident, involving the same set of facts, evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
and witnesses, the departmental authority must give cogent reason if it
intends to arrive at a conclusion different from that of the criminal court.
In the present case the department has failed to give cogent reason.
23. The termination order, in light of the above facts and settled legal
principles, suffers from arbitrariness and disproportionate exercise of
power. Because the acquittal by a competent court, absence of medical
proof of intoxication and lack of new evidence in departmental inquiry
collectively render the impugned order unsustainable in law.
24. So far as charge No. (I) and (IV) are concerned, the petitioner
failed to seek prior permission before undertaking the journey and failed
to inform the arrest in a criminal case to District Judge concerned. To that
note as submitted by the petitioner, while leaving the headquarters, had
handed over his application dated 16.06.2018 to his deposition writer for
submission to the office, stating that he was proceeding on account of his
father's illness. During the departmental enquiry, the deposition writer
was examined and admitted that he had received the said application but
inadvertently failed to submit it. In support of his explanation, the
petitioner has also filed medical documents to substantiate the illness of
his father in order to rebut Charge No. 1. However, no effort was made
by the disciplinary authority to verify the genuineness of the medical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
documents either by summoning the concerned doctor or by seeking a
report through official communication. Such procedural lapse, in the
absence of any intent to mislead or suppress, cannot be equated with
grave misconduct. Further, though it is recorded that the petitioner failed
to inform the District Judge regarding his arrest in the criminal case, this
lapse appears to be more in the nature of an omission rather than a willful
suppression, particularly when the petitioner was already under distress
due to personal and legal circumstances. In any event, considering the
overall circumstances, the nature of the charges, the acquittal by the
competent criminal court, and the absence of direct evidence supporting
the alleged misconduct, the extreme penalty of termination appears to be
disproportionate to the alleged conduct. It is well settled that mere
suspicion or procedural lapses without malicious intent should not form
the sole basis of severe punishment unless supported by conclusive
evidence of moral turpitude or dishonesty.
25. In view of the above observation, we pass the following orders;-
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The petitioner is exonerated from the charge No.(II), (III)
and (V).
(iii) The termination order dated 28.09.2019 is hereby quashed.
(iv) Petitioner be reinstated in the services within a period of 15
days from the receipt of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21081
(v) The respondent/authority may, if deemed appropriate,
impose a minor penalty, strictly limited to the proven
charges of not seeking prior approval for travel and not
informing the arrest in a criminal case to District Judge
concerned.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
praveen
