Высший суд Мадхья-Прадеша отказал бывшему полицейскому в восстановлении на службе после оправдания по уголовному делу

Bhopal/Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh high court has ruled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a govt employee to reinstatement, observing that criminal proceedings and departmental inquiries serve different purposes and are governed by different standards of proof. Dismissing a petition filed by dismissed Rewa police constable Ramphal Ahirwar, Justice Deepak Khot held in an order dated June 30, 2026, that the petitioner, as a member of a disciplined force, was expected to maintain the highest standards of conduct and that “mere acquittal by a court doesn’t absolve the delinquent from the charges proved in the departmental inquiry.” Ahirwar was accused of forcing a woman travelling in an auto-rickshaw to remove her scarf at knifepoint on June 10, 2017. He was booked under Sections 294, 323 and 506(B) of the IPC for alleged obscenity, causing simple hurt and criminal intimidation, along with Section 25(B) of the Arms Act. A departmental inquiry was initiated simultaneously, and he was dismissed from service in 2018. In 2023, a district court acquitted Ahirwar, granting him the benefit of doubt. He subsequently sought reinstatement, but his request was rejected, prompting him to move the HC. The HC noted that although the complainant turned hostile during the criminal trial and failed to identify Ahirwar in court, she had testified against him during the departmental inquiry, where the charges were found proved. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the S. Bhaskar Reddy case, Justice Khot observed: “It is fairly well settled that two proceedings- criminal and departmental- are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the objective of a criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose a penalty in accordance with the service rules. 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. Even 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 the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’.”