[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indra Vikram Singh Bhadouriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9496
1 WP-2461-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2461 of 2026
INDRA VIKRAM SINGH BHADOURIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Dhengula - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt.Monika Mishra - GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Respondents have filed the reply today.
2. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29th August, 2017,
whereby, he was dismissed from service on account of registration of FIR
against him. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 28/10/2024 (Annexure
P/1), whereby, his request for reinstatement in service has been declined by
the respondent/authorities even though the petitioner has been acquitted in
the criminal case.
4. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner
raised a singular ground that since the petitioner's dismissal from service was
based upon registration of FIR for offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(d),
323 read with Section 34, 506 (Part II) of IPC and since the petitioner has
been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgment dated 14/6/2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9496
2 WP-2461-2026
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Sessions Case No.
80/2019, he is entitled to be reinstated in service. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also referred to the order dated 4/12/2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.No. 5775/2025 to say that one Krishna Veer Dhakad, who was co-
accused with petitioner in the criminal case and was also dismissed from
service, the writ petition filed by him was allowed by this Court.
5. Respondents have filed the reply. They have tried to justify the
impugned action of the respondents on the ground that petitioner was
dismissed from service on account of registration of FIR for the aforesaid
offences. It is further submitted by them that the acquittal of the petitioner is
not honorable, whereas, same has resulted because the prosecution witnesses
have turned hostile. Learned counsel for the State thus submitted that even
though petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, he does not deserve
to be reinstated in service.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
7. It is not in dispute between the parties that the dismissal of petitioner
from service was only on ground of registration of FIR against him and one
Krishna Veer Dhakad for the offence mentioned above. It is further not in
dispute that petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment
dated 14/6/2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in
Sessions Case No. 80/2019.
8. Since the petitioner's dismissal from service was based upon his
involvement in the criminal case, there remains no reason for the respondents
for not reinstating the petitioner in service after his acquittal in the criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9496
3 WP-2461-2026
case. Submission of State counsel that the acquittal of petitioner is not
honorable is also not acceptable inasmuch as for holding him guilty of any
misconduct, they should require to conduct departmental enquiry.
9. It is seen that one Shri Krishna Veer Dhakad was co-accused with
petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case. He challenged the order of dismissal
from service before this Court in W.P.No. 5775/2025. The petition was
allowed by this Court directing the respondents to reinstate him in service.
Respondents are however given liberty to conduct departmental enquiry, if
they so want.
10. Considering the aforesaid, impugned orders dated 29/08/2017
(Annexure P/2) and 28/10/2024 (Annexure P/1) are set aside. Respondents
are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, the respondents
are also given liberty to conduct departmental enquiry in accordance with
provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966 and, as has been directed by this Court in the case of Krishna Veer
Dhakad, it is directed that in this case also, petitioner shall be entitled for
continuity in service only and would not be entitled for back wages.
11. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
