The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that dismissal from service cannot be justified solely on the basis of a single day of unauthorized absence or the mere registration of a criminal case against a government employee. The judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary action must be proportionate and grounded in established facts, not speculative allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kuldeep Ojha, was serving as a Constable (Driver) at Police Station AJAK, District Ashoknagar, Madhya Pradesh. He was suspended on 02.12.2019 following allegations of unauthorized absence and involvement in a criminal case. A charge-sheet was issued on 28.01.2021, alleging two violations of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. A departmental enquiry was conducted, resulting in both charges being found proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on 25.02.2025, dismissed him from service. His appeal against this order was dismissed on 18.07.2025. The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was posted as Constable (Driver) at Police Station AJAK, Ashoknagar
- He was suspended on 02.12.2019
- Charge-sheet dated 28.01.2021 alleged two violations:
- Charge 1: Unauthorized absence on 25.11.2019
- Charge 2: Involvement in Criminal Case No. 337/2019 under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, and 294 IPC
- The petitioner submitted written replies denying both charges
- Departmental enquiry conducted by DSP Ashoknagar concluded both charges were proved
- The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the Enquiry Officer’s findings on 25.02.2025
- Appeal against dismissal was dismissed on 18.07.2025
- Criminal case remains pending trial as of the date of judgment (07.04.2026)
- The petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2019 and placed under judicial custody
- The criminal case was registered on 28.11.2019 by Police Station Dehat, Shivpuri
- No conviction has been obtained in the criminal case
Procedural History
- 02.12.2019: Petitioner suspended from duty
- 28.01.2021: Charge-sheet issued under M.P. Police Regulations
- 25.11.2019: Alleged date of unauthorized absence
- 26.11.2019: SHO AJAK reported absence to S.P. Ashoknagar
- 27.11.2019: Petitioner arrested in connection with Criminal Case No. 337/2019
- 28.11.2019: S.P. Shivpuri informed S.P. Ashoknagar about registration of criminal case
- 21.12.2024: Enquiry report shared with petitioner for explanation
- 31.01.2025: Petitioner submitted reply denying allegations
- 25.02.2025: Disciplinary Authority dismissed petitioner from service
- 18.07.2025: Appellate Authority dismissed appeal
- 2025: Writ Petition No. 26909 of 2025 filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court
- 24.03.2026: Arguments reserved
- 07.04.2026: Judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Setting aside of the dismissal order dated 25.02.2025
- Setting aside of the appellate order dated 18.07.2025
- Reinstatement in service with consequential benefits
- Back wages for the period of suspension and dismissal
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether dismissal from service is a proportionate punishment for a single day of unauthorized absence, and (2) Whether a departmental authority may hold an employee guilty of violating service regulations based solely on the registration of a criminal case, prior to conviction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the first charge of absence on 25.11.2019 was not substantiated by any witness testimony, and records indicated his presence. He argued that dismissal for a single-day absence was grossly disproportionate and violated principles of natural justice. Regarding the second charge, he emphasized that the petitioner was only an accused in a pending criminal case, not a convicted person. He cited that Regulation 64(11) requires conduct that tarnishes the image of the police, which cannot be presumed without a conviction. He relied on the presumption of innocence and the principle that departmental proceedings cannot substitute criminal trials.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate argued that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly, with full opportunity of hearing. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer’s factual findings, supported by witness statements and rojnamcha entries, were conclusive. He contended that the petitioner’s involvement in a serious criminal case, even without conviction, justified disciplinary action under Regulation 64(11) as it brought disrepute to the police force. He asserted that judicial review under Article 226 cannot interfere with factual findings of a departmental enquiry unless patently illegal or perverse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the two charges separately. Regarding Charge No.1, the Court acknowledged that the Enquiry Officer’s factual finding of absence on 25.11.2019 was supported by evidence and concurred with by both the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. The Court declined to interfere with this factual determination, noting that it does not sit as an appellate body in writ jurisdiction.
However, the Court held that dismissal from service for a single day of unauthorized absence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate. The Court observed that lesser penalties such as withholding increments, stoppage of pay, or censure are available under service rules and must be considered before invoking dismissal.
"Nobody could be dismissed from service only on account of absence from duty for one day."
Regarding Charge No.2, the Court focused on Regulation 64(11), which mandates that a police officer shall "set an example of peaceful behaviour" in private life. The Court held that this provision cannot be invoked merely because an officer is named as an accused in a criminal case. The Court emphasized:
"This conclusion can be reached only when the petitioner is convicted and found guilty of the offences alleged against him. This is because, there are cases where the persons are found falsely implicated in the criminal case."
The Court clarified that the mere registration of a case and filing of a challan do not establish guilt. The presumption of innocence under Article 21 of the Constitution applies equally in departmental proceedings. The Court held that the respondents erred in concluding that the petitioner had violated Regulation 64(11) without a conviction.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The orders dated 25.02.2025 and 18.07.2025 were set aside. The petitioner was reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. However, he was not entitled to back wages for the intervening period. The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to impose a suitable penalty for Charge No.1, taking into account the gravity of a single-day absence. The Court directed that no further action be taken on Charge No.2 until the conclusion of the criminal trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Dismissal Must Be Proportionate to the Offence
- A single day of unauthorized absence cannot justify dismissal unless accompanied by aggravating factors such as repeated misconduct or refusal to comply with orders
- Disciplinary authorities must consider lesser penalties before resorting to dismissal
- The principle of proportionality under Article 14 must guide punishment decisions
- Practitioners should challenge dismissal orders where the punishment does not match the nature of the misconduct
Criminal Allegations Cannot Substitute Disciplinary Proof
- Departmental authorities cannot presume guilt based on criminal charges alone
- Regulation 64(11) and similar provisions require proven conduct, not mere accusation
- Pending criminal proceedings must not be used to prejudge service conduct
- Employers must await conviction before invoking clauses related to moral turpitude or reputation damage
- Legal practitioners should argue for stay of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal trial where the charges are identical
