When a public servant is acquitted in a criminal case on the merits of the same facts underlying a departmental enquiry, continuing the internal disciplinary proceeding violates the principle of natural justice. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has now firmly established that identical factual findings in both forums demand consistency, preventing double jeopardy in substance even if not in form.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Timesh Kumar Chhari, an Inspector of Police, faced criminal prosecution under Section 376 IPC, Sections 384 and 388 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on allegations made by a complainant who later compromised. Concurrently, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him under Service Rules for misconduct related to the same incident.
Procedural History
- 2023: FIRs registered in two police stations (Mahila Thana and Padav) alleging sexual assault and extortion.
- 2023: Departmental enquiry initiated with charge-sheet dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) alleging five charges of misconduct.
- October 17, 2024: Coordinate Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed both criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, finding no offence made out after verifying compromise and recording statements.
- 2025: Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking suspension of departmental proceedings, later seeking quashment of the charge-sheet.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashment of the departmental charge-sheet and reinstatement with full consequential benefits, arguing that continuation of the enquiry after criminal acquittal on merits was unjust and violative of natural justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a departmental enquiry can lawfully continue against a public servant after the criminal court has acquitted him on the same facts and evidence, where the acquittal was based on failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat to argue that when the facts and evidence in both proceedings are identical, the acquittal in the criminal case must be accepted as conclusive on the merits. He contended that continuing the departmental enquiry amounted to punishing him twice for the same conduct, violating natural justice and the principle of res judicata in substance.
For the Respondent/State
The State relied on Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh and Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation to assert that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different domains with different standards of proof. It argued that acquittal due to compromise or benefit of doubt does not equate to exoneration and that the department retains authority to assess moral suitability under Service Rules.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the general principle that departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, with lower evidentiary thresholds and different objectives. However, it drew a critical distinction: when the facts and evidence are identical and the criminal court has acquitted the accused not on technicalities or compromise alone, but after a substantive evaluation concluding that the charges were not proved, the department is bound by that finding.
"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 Court emphasized that M. Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank established that where there is no iota of difference in facts, the distinction in burden of proof cannot be used to circumvent the outcome of a criminal acquittal on merits. The Court further cited Gurpal Singh v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan to reinforce that suspension and continued proceedings become unreasonable after acquittal.
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on compromise as a basis to sustain the enquiry, noting that the criminal court had not merely accepted compromise but had independently examined the prosecution’s case and found no offence made out. The acquittal was therefore a finding on the merits, not a procedural exit.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that when criminal proceedings are quashed on merits after full examination of identical facts, departmental enquiries based on the same evidence must be terminated. The charge-sheet was quashed and the petitioner was ordered reinstated with full consequential benefits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Acquittal on Merits Bars Departmental Continuation
- Practitioners must now argue that acquittal on merits - not merely acquittal due to compromise or benefit of doubt - triggers an automatic bar to continuing departmental proceedings.
- The burden shifts to the department to prove that the criminal acquittal was not on merits before seeking to proceed.
- Any departmental enquiry initiated after such an acquittal is liable to be quashed under Article 226.
Natural Justice Requires Consistency
- The principle of natural justice demands that a person not be punished twice for the same conduct when the factual basis has been judicially exonerated.
- Even if departmental standards are lower, they cannot override a judicial finding that the allegations are unsubstantiated.
- This applies equally to police officers, government employees, and public servants across all departments.
Reinstatement Is Mandatory
- Reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits is not discretionary but a necessary consequence of quashing an unjustified departmental proceeding.
- Delays in reinstatement post-quashment may attract contempt proceedings or claims for damages.
- Employers must issue formal orders of reinstatement within 15 days of the order.
