Sultan Singh Nagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 801 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sultan Singh Nagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026

                                            1



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                 AT GWALIOR
                                     BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
                  WRIT PETITION No.11808 OF 2021
                          SULTAN SINGH NAGAR
                                      Versus
           STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
       Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi- learned Senior counsel with Shri Jagjeet
Kumar Das - learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Shri B.M. Patel - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Reserved on       :       14/01/2026
                      Delivered on :            27/01/2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 23/07/2019 (Annexure-P/3) passed by respondent no.2/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gwalior, whereby the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on him on account of certain misconduct found proved in the departmental enquiry. He has also challenged order dated 01/11/2019 and 11/05/2021, whereby his appeal and mercy appeal have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station-

Raghogarh, District- Guna (M.P.). It was alleged against him that during the intervening night of 07-08/05/2011, he alongwith co-delinquent-Ashok Kumar Sharma and Jeetu Nagpal and Balveer Singh Rana de-boarded the complainant- Babu Singh from Rajdhani Express at Kota Railway Station and abducted him and thereafter, looted about 4072.700 gm gold from him.

3. On the complaint of Babu Singh, a criminal case in this regard was registered by GRP Kota (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 392, 34 of IPC. It be noted here that the petitioner, co-accused- Ashok Kumar Sharma and two others were prosecuted for the said offence and they have been acquitted in the criminal case by the judgment dated 30/06/2016 passed by the Additional Session Judge No.3, Kota in Session Case No.45/2014.

4. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner in relation of the aforesaid incident on 03/12/2011 (Annexure-P/4) wherein the following charges were levelled against him:

""1. fnaukd 7-5-2011 dh jk=h dks x'r psfdax M;wVh ls vuqifLFkfr gksdj drZO; ds izfr?kksj ykijokgh iznf'kZr djuk A

2. fnuakd 7-5-2011 dks fcuk vuqefr ds vukf/kd`r:i ls 'kkldh; onhZ ,oa fjokYoj ds dksVk ¼jktLFkku½ tkdj fu;efo:) dk;Z djukA

3. fnuakd 7-5-2011 dks gh Xokfy;j ds 'kkfrj vijkf/k;ksa@fuxjkuh cnek'k thrw ukxiky] cyohj flag jk.kk vkfn ds lkFk dksVk jsYos LVs'ku ij jkt/kkuh ,Dlizsl ls Qfj;knh ckcwflag dks mrkjdj mlds ikl ls 4072-700 xzke 995 fe xzke lksuk ywVdj vigj.k ,oa ywV tSlk ?k`f.kr vijk/k ?kfVr dj iqfyl foHkkx dh Nfc /kwfey djuk A

4. Qfj;knh ckcw flag ds lkFk dh x;h ywV ds vijk/k ls vius vkidks cpkus ds fy, Fkkuk jk?kkSx< ds jks lk ua 240] 241 ,oa 245@8 5 2011 ij vlR; ,oa QthZ ,aVªh ntZ dj iqfyl jsX;wys'ku ds iSjk 634 dk mYya?ku djuk A"

5. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Guna was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Presenting Officer was also

appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry wherein apart from the documentary evidence, 15 prosecution witnesses were examined and the petitioner also examined 7 witnesses in his defense. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 25/10/2018 (Annexure- P/7), whereby the charges were found proved.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Guna issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 23/02/2019 whereby copy of enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner and he was asked to submit his explanation to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his reply wherein he mainly relied upon his acquittal in the criminal case.

7. The Superintendent of Police, Guna thereafter forwarded the matter to respondent no.2 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police for necessary action who, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 23/07/2019 thereby imposing punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal and mercy appeal filed against the punishment order also suffered from dismissal by the Inspector General of Police and the State Government vide orders dated 01/11/2019 & 11/05/2021 respectively. Challenging these punishment orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was contrary to the procedure prescribed for conducting the departmental enquiry under the Police Regulations. He submitted that the complainant- Babu Singh was not examined in the enquiry which is fatal for the prosecution case inasmuch as the said Babu Singh has not supported the prosecution story in the criminal case. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer while holding the charges proved are perverse and contrary to the records. He also argued that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case in relation to the same incident by a competent Court of jurisdiction, on the same set of facts, the

enquiry could not have been conducted by the respondents. He also submitted that due opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner in the enquiry.

9. Learned Senior counsel referring to the enquiry report also submitted that the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charge no.3 only because the challan was filed against him by GRP Kota in the criminal case. It is his submission that merely because challan was filed against him, the petitioner could not have been held guilty of charge. It is his further submission that the Enquiry Officer erred in relying upon the CCTV footage of Kota Railway Station in absence of any certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. He, thus, submitted that the action of the respondents is illegal and liable to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State supported the impugned action of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner has been found guilty of serious charges based upon appreciation of the evidence collected during the course of the enquiry and, therefore, the factual findings recorded during the departmental enquiry are not open to interference in exercise of powers of judicial review. Taking this Court through the statement of various prosecution witnesses which finds mention in the enquiry report, learned counsel argued that there is sufficient material available in the enquiry record to hold the charges proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and except making a bald statement, no defect has been pointed out in the enquiry. Learned counsel, thus, argued that the order of punishment passed against the petitioner is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not warrant any interference in the present writ petition.

11. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

12. Before adverting the facts of the case, the scope of interference of this Court in the disciplinary matters needs to be examined. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015)2 SCC 610 discussed the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held as under:-

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted

inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

13. Again in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Phulpari Kumari reported in (2020)2 SCC 130, the Apex Court held, in the departmental enquiry, that sufficiency of evidence is not a ground for interference and if there is any material available on record to support the findings, the interference is not warranted.

14. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, even though tried to convince this Court that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was improper, however, he could not point out any defect in the departmental enquiry. From the record, it is seen that prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the petitioner. He has also examined seven defense witnesses in support of his case. There was no complaint made by the petitioner at any point of time alleging denial of any opportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry. Thus, in absence of any specific defect pointed out in enquiry, the objection raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding departmental enquiry being improper, is not acceptable and is,

accordingly, rejected.

15. On merits also, learned counsel for petitioner tried to show that there is no evidence against the petitioner to hold him guilty of charges in departmental enquiry. In this regard, it is seen that the charges leveled against the petitioner are inter-connected. For this charge, the petitioner's defense was that he went on patrolling in the intervening night of 7- 8/05/2011 in Raghogarh City. The prosecution has examined Inspector- Raghvendra Singh Tomar, the then Station House Officer, Raghogarh as PW-

10. He has made a specific statement that the constable- Bhupat Singh has informed him that the petitioner and constable - Ashok Kumar Sharma did not come for patrolling and were absent. He further stated that in the morning of 08/05/2011 the petitioner came to the police station and on being asked, he informed him that because some persons from Guna had come, he could not come for patrolling. This statement of PW-10 has been duly supported by the Assistant Sub-Inspector- Bhupat Singh (PW-1), Head Constable - Purushottam Sharma (PW-2) and Assistant Sub-Inspector- Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-8).

16. The then Station House Officer, GRP Kota, Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena has been examined in the departmental enquiry. He certified that the petitioner alongwith co-delinquent Ashok Kumar Sharma and Jeetu Nagpal, Balveer Singh Rana were found present at Kota Railway Station at around 9:00 PM. This fact was established on the basis of CCTV footage at Kota Railway Station. The petitioner was arrested on 14/09/2011 and he was identified by the complainant- Babu Singh.

17. ASI- Sanjay Gupta (PW-7) has certified the call details of the petitioner and Ashok Kumar Sharma from 07/05/2011 to 08/05/2011 wherein the petitioner's location was found to be at Kota Railway Station. In this regard, the petitioner's defence was that his son misplaced his mobile on

05/05/2011 in relation to which he lodged an FIR. His son was also examined as defence witness. However, being interested witness, his statement is not believed by the enquiry officer. Apart from the above, co- delinquent- Ashok Kumar Sharma in his statement has categorically stated that the petitioner called him by his mobile in the afternoon of 07/05/2011. He has also called the petitioner on his mobile number. The petitioner failed to produce on record the document to show lodging of FIR of missing mobile.

18. Appreciating all these evidence, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the petitioner was not present in Raghogarh and was in fact present at Kota Railway Station. Notably, Jeetu Nagpal and Balveer Singh Rana, with whom the petitioner was found present at Kota Railway Station, are stated to be history-sheeters. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, thus, cannot be said to be perverse or based upon no evidence. In fact, appreciation of evidence in the enquiry report is found to be just and proper.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the criminal case to say that after petitioner's acquittal in criminal case, the enquiry for the same incident could not have been conducted. In this regard, it is seen that the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case by giving benefit of doubt. It is gathered from the judgment that many of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and noticing contradiction in the statement of other witnesses, the offence against the petitioner could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, in the departmental enquiry, the finding is to be recorded on the principle of preponderance of probability. Thus, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is of no help to the petitioner.

20. The law in this regard has been summarised by Apex Court in the

case of State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh reported in (2021)12 SCC 569, as under:-

"J.The effect of an acquittal

38. In the present case, we have an acquittal in a criminal trial on a charge of murder. The judgment of the Sessions Court is a reflection of the vagaries of the administration of criminal justice. The judgment contains a litany of hostile witnesses, and of the star witness resiling from his statements. Our precedents indicate that acquittal in a criminal trial in such circumstances does not conclude a disciplinary enquiry. In Southern Railway Officers Assn. v.Union of India [Southern Railway Officers Assn.v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 24 :

(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 552] , this Court held : (SCC p. 40, para

37) "37. Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said fact had not been taken into consideration. The revisional authority did so. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge."

(emphasis supplied)

39. In State v. S. Samuthiram [State v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that unless the accused has an "honourable acquittal" in their criminal trial, as opposed to an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or for technical reasons, the acquittal shall not affect the decision in the disciplinary proceedings and lead to automatic reinstatement. But the penal statutes governing substance or procedure do not allude to an "honourable acquittal". Noticing this, the Court observed : (SCC pp. 609-10, paras 24-26) "Honourable acquittal

24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal"

came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] . In that case, this Court has

considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787] it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari [State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari, 1972 SLR 44 (SC)] this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. In Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor [Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor, 1933 SCC OnLine Cal 369 : ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168] which is as follows :

(Raghava case [State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari, 1972 SLR 44 (SC)] , SLR p. 47, para 8) '8. ... The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to courts of justice.

Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra-judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term "honourably acquitted".' (Robert Stuart case [Robert Stuart

Wauchope v. Emperor, 1933 SCC OnLine Cal 369 : ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168] , ILR pp. 188-89)

26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so."

(emphasis supplied)

40. In the present case, the respondent was acquitted of the charge of murder. The circumstances in which the trial led to an acquittal have been elucidated in detail above. The verdict of the criminal trial did not conclude the disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary enquiry was not governed by proof beyond reasonable doubt or by the rules of evidence which governed the criminal trial. True, even on the more relaxed standard which governs a disciplinary enquiry, evidence of the involvement of the respondent in a conspiracy involving the death of Bhanwar Singh would be difficult to prove. But there are, as we have seen earlier, circumstances emerging from the record of the disciplinary proceedings which bring legitimacy to the

contention of the State that to reinstate such an employee back in service will erode the credibility of and public confidence in the image of the police force."

21. Thus, it is settled in law that mere acquittal in the criminal case would not be a ground for exoneration of the delinquent in the departmental enquiry if the findings recorded therein finds support with the evidence collected during enquiry and the charge is established on the principles of preponderance of probability. In the view of discussion made above, there was ample evidence available to prove the charge against the petitioner.

22. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the factual findings recorded against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry are just and proper and the action taken against the petitioner based upon such findings are also legal and valid.

23. Resultantly, the challenge to the impugned orders fails and the petition is, hereby, dismissed.

(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE

rahul RAHUL SINGH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT

2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cde4 dee473fe77953f5, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH

PARIHAR AT GWALIOR,CID - 7063520, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=0275c4f803f94c47998be5c534e21bded910fd4ab9d1 59b55575e814d05b2eed, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2026.01.29 18:19:48 +05'30'