Madhya Pradesh High Court
Birbal Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52567
1 WP-40263-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40263 of 2024
BIRBAL CHOUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Chiranjeev Sharma - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Avnish Khatri - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
By way of this Petition, the Petitioner has called into question, the Order
Annexure P-7 whereby the Petitioner had been dismissed from service while
working as Constable in Special Armed Force. Further, challenge is made to
Appellate Order Annexure P-9, whereby his appeal has been rejected by the
Appellate Authority confirming the Penalty of dismissal.
2. The necessary factual background of the case is that the Petitioner was
involved in a criminal case under Sections 376, 294 and 323 IPC upon FIR being
lodged against him by the complainant on 09.08.2021 in connection to which he
was arrested on 10.08.2021 and was ultimately granted bail on 30.09.2021. The
Petitioner admittedly, has been honourably acquitted by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Junnardeo, District Chhindwara in S.T.No.33/2021 vide judgment dated
25.01.2024, which is prior to the Appellate Order.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that after acquittal in
Criminal trial, now there remains nothing in the case and the dismissal Order has
to be set aside which is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52567
2 WP-40263-2024
4. Upon considering the rival submissions, it is seen that the two charges
were levelled vide charge sheet dated 01.12.2021 which was preceded by a
preliminary enquiry report dated 25.10.2021. In the charge sheet, the following
two charges were levelled on the Petitioner:-
"1 पुिलस वभाग जैसे अनुशािसत बल म भत रहकर वयं के व अप०
मांक 157/2021 धारा 376 (2) एन, 294, 323, 506 भाद व का कायम होने पर
भी वभाग को सूचना न दे कर अनुशासनह नता दिशत कर पुिलस रै यूलेशन
के पैरा 64(4) का उ लंघन करना।
2 आर० चालक बीरबल चौहान के दनांक 10.08.21 को िगर तार होने क
सूचना वभाग को न दे कर व अपराध मांक 0/2021 धारा 376 (2) एन, 294,
323, 506 भाद व पंजीब होने से म० ० िस वल सेवा आचरण िनयम 3 (1)
(111) का उ लंघन करना।"
5. It is clear from the above that the first charge was of not providing
information to the force regarding the Petitioner being involved in Criminal Case
under Sections 376, 294, 323 and 506 of I.P.C and the second charge was of not
giving information of arrest to the force. Therefore, the two charges were
respectively in the matter of not giving information of involvement in criminal
case and secondly of not giving information of arrest.
6. The Enquiry Officer found both the charges to be proved and upon
finding the charges to be proved, the disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of
dismissal vide Annexure P-7 while specifically noting in the dismissal order that
the authority is not considering the fact relating to the alleged act of the Petitioner
under Section 376 IPC because it is beyond the purview of disciplinary authority,
and it is restricting itself in respect to the said two charges for awarding the
penalty of dismissal.
7. The Petitioner was admittedly arrested on 10.08.2021 on the strength of
an FIR dated 09.08.2021. It is really surprising that how the Police force expected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52567
3 WP-40263-2024
the person who is under arrest to give information of his arrest because all means
of communication are cut off during arrest. The Order of suspension Annexure P-1
clearly mentions in the first line that the force got information of the fact of
Petitioner being involved in criminal case and his arrest vide Letter No.61/2021
dated 11.08.2021 sent by Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara. The same fact
has been mentioned in the opening lines of the charge sheet Annexure P-2 that
vide Letter No.61/2021 dated 11.08.2021, the Superintendent of Police,
Chhindwara has intimated the fact of the Petitioner being involved in criminal case
and being arrested.
8. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the force had already got
information of the FIR against the Petitioner and his arrest by Letter dated
11.08.2021 sent by the Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara. The Petitioner was
under arrest from 10.08.2021 till 30.09.2021 and though the Petitioner cannot be
expected to give information of his arrest being under jail custody but force had
got formal information of FIR and arrest on 11.08.2021 itself.
9. If the force had got information of FIR and arrest on 11.08.2021 itself
which was the very next day of arrest of Petitioner and within two days of
registration of FIR, therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner committed any
misconduct of suppressing his arrest and registration of FIR from the force. The
force had the information on 11.08.2021 itself and the FIR was only two days old
on that date. Issuing charge sheet against the Petitioner that the Petitioner
suppressed the fact of arrest and FIR seems to be utterly uncalled for and harassing
tactics and action on part of the force and it amounts to nothing but harassment of
the Petitioner for no reason at all.
10. The Petitioner has admittedly been acquitted in criminal case under
Section 376 IPC as well as all other provisions under which he was prosecuted and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52567
4 WP-40263-2024
there is no quarrel to that.
11. In view of the above, the dismissal Order and the Appellate Order are
utterly illegal and arbitrary and cannot be given stamp of approval by this Court.
The said Orders are set aside.
12. The Petitioner shall be entitled to entire consequential benefits including
arrears of salary from the date of termination onwards. For the period of
suspension prior to termination, the authority will pass appropriate Orders for
Salary in terms of F.R.54-B within 90 days, however, the suspension period shall
be treated to be period spent in service for all purposes except backwages for
which liberty is granted to pass appropriate Orders.
13. In the above terms, the Petition is allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
