Timesh Kumar Chhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                                                               1                           W.P. No.28412/2024

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT G WA L I O R
                                                              BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                   ON THE 04 OF FEB., 2026


                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 28412 OF 2024
                                                   TIMESH KUMAR CHHARI
                                                                 Versus
                                   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Appearance:
                         Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Joyjeet Kumar
                         Das, Advocate for petitioner.
                         Shri Sohit Mishra, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Reserved on : 30.01.2026
                                                     Delivered on : 04.02.2026
                                                               ORDER

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

(i) That, the respondent No.2-S.P. Gwalior (M.P.) be directed to keep the further proceedings of departmental enquiry instituted vide departmental enquiry No.31/2023, charge-sheet dated 01.12.2023, which has been served by covering letter Annexure P/1 in abeyance till finalization of criminal case of Crime No.323/2023 of Mahila Police Station, District Gwalior in the interest of justice.

(ii) That, the further proceedings of departmental enquiry as contained in Annexure P/1 be directed to remain suspended and in abeyance till final conclusion of criminal case of Crime No.323/2023 of Mahila

Police Station, District Gwalior.

(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is Inspector (Police) and at the relevant point of time, he was holding the post of T.I. in Police Station Hazeera, District Gwalior. A lady was blackmailing the petitioner and consequent thereupon for her personal purpose, lodged a false complaint against him in the form of FIR No.323/2023 for offence under Section 376 of IPC at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior. Petitioner has also been prosecuted for offence under Sections 384 and 388 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "Act, 1989") on the basis of FIR bearing Crime No.673/2023 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior. For the same incident and same set of facts and evidence, departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and five charges have been levelled against him, but later on, vide orders dated 17.10.2024 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. Nos.29248/2024 and 35861/2024, both the criminal proceedings have been quashed against him, therefore, looking to the fact of quashment of criminal proceedings, departmental enquiry against the petitioner initiated by the charge-sheet (Annexure P-1) cannot be permitted to continue and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, it is prayed that entire charge-sheet contained in Annexure P-1 be quashed in the light of order dated 17.10.2024 passed in both above M.Cr.C.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection with a condition that departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings shall continue simultaneously. Charges

registered against the petitioner on the basis of FIR bearing Crime No.323/2023 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior and FIR bearing Crime No.673/2023 at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior have been quashed by this Court on the ground that the complainant and accused entered into compromise. Conduct of the petitioner touching upon the moral suitability of the police service, petitioner's acquittal is not a clean acquittal, but a result of benefit of doubt/compromise. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Parvej Khan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591, degree of proof in criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry is different, therefore, departmental enquiry can be continued even the after the order of acquittal of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

4. Both the parties heard at length and perused the entire record with due care.

5. A perusal of FIR and charge-sheet in departmental enquiry disclosed that charges framed against the petitioner both in departmental proceedings as well as criminal cases are one and the same, therefore, it has to be taken as both the charges are arising out of the same incident and same set of facts. Undoubtedly, offence under Section 376 of IPC (FIR bearing Crime No.323/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior) and offence under Sections 384, 388 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 (FIR bearing Crime No.673/2023 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior) have been registered against the petitioner, but coordinate Bench of this Court while exercising

the powers under Section 482 of CrPC quashed both the criminal charge- sheet/criminal prosecution vide order dated 17.10.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.35861/2024 and M.Cr.C. No.29248/2024 and before passing orders in both the matters, factum of compromise has been verified through Principal Registrar of this Court and statement of prosecutrix as well as petitioner has been recorded and on the basis thereof, the Court has quashed both the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and ultimately acquitted him from all the aforesaid charges. Learned counsel for respondent/State placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4986 contended that acquittal by criminal Court will not preclude the department from holding the criminal proceedings.

6. It is settled law that acquittal by a Criminal Court would not debar an employer/department from exercising power in accordance with the rules and regulations in force. The two proceedings, viz., criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, whereas the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose on him penalty in accordance with Service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. Likewise, the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency.

7. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. Whereas, in departmental enquiry penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of the preponderance of probability. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, AIR 1999 SC 1416, observed that since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, viz., departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same, without there being an iota of difference, the distinction which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable. In the case on hand, the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, viz., departmental and criminal were the same and in view of acquittal of the criminal case on merits, I am of the view that the Revenue administration is not justified in pursuing the departmental enquiry." The crux of the issue is when the facts and evidence in the criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding are same, the department will not be justified in pursuing the departmental proceeding after acquittal in the criminal case.

8. Undoubtedly, department can proceed with the departmental enquiry in respect of charges levelled against the concerned employee/officer. However, if the criminal Court acquitted the very same person on the ground that charges framed against him had not been proved, the department cannot ignore the said order of acquittal. It cannot be accepted that all cases of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts will not end in acquittal and the departmental enquiry should not be

proceeded with.

9. From perusal of the order passed by coordinate Bench in respect of petitioner in petition under Section 482 of CrPC, it appears that both these orders simply show that after anlyzing the prosecution case, recording the statement of the prosecutrix and after giving finding that no offence could be proved against the petitioner, he has been acquitted from the charges. The very same charges had been framed by the department at the time of passing the final order, therefore, the department is bound to consider the acquittal judgment of the criminal Court.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 13 SCC 94 held as under:-

"48...........This apart, the petitioner had been acquitted of any involvement in the crime of murder. Whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 54, it was necessary for the High Court to pass a detailed and reasoned order as to whether the period of suspension was wholly unjustified. Undoubtedly, the power under Rule 54 is discretionary but such discretion has to be exercised reasonably and by taking into consideration the material relevant to the decision. Upon acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal charges, it was no longer necessary to keep him under suspension during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. In our opinion, the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly under Rule 54, as directed by this Court in the order dated 5th April, 2011. In our opinion, the suspension of the petitioner ought to have been revoked upon acquittal by the High Court even during the pendency of the departmental enquiry."

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 held as under:-

"31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department 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 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's case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and to the facts of the case, as the charge is one and same in both the criminal cases and in the departmental proceedings as well as the fact that the criminal Court acquitted the petitioners, it is not desirable on the part of respondents to proceed with the departmental proceedings on the same facts. Consequently, the charge-sheet dated 01.12.2023 is liable to be set aside in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesiad cited cases.

13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court on the same facts, on which, the departmental enquiry has been initiated against him, therefore, on the basis of principle of natural justice, petitioner is entitled for quashment of departmental enquiry against him and he is also entitled for all the benefits, to which, he would have been normally entitled had he been on duty.

14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and departmental enquiry

No.31/2023 and charge-sheet dated 01.12.2023 initiated against the petitioner are hereby quashed. It is also directed that the petitioner be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits.

15. No order as to the cost.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Abhi