The main legal point established is that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate a departmental inquiry, and unauthorized absence in a disciplined force can justify removal from service.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 16.05.2019 passed by Inspector General of Police, Special Armed Force, Jabalpur Range, Jabalpur and order dated 31.12.2019 passed by Special Director General of Police, Special Armed Force, Police Armed Force, Police Headquarter, Bhopal in File No.DGP/Special Armed Force (10)/2810/2019, by which, order of punishment of removal from service has been upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable. One prosecutrix (X) made a complaint against the petitioner in Police Station Kotwali, District Chhindwara alleging that on 15.6.2015 at about 13:50 pm the petitioner gave an assurance to the X for solemnization of marriage and on that pretext he developed physical relationship with her and now he has refused to marry. Therefore, she lodged an FIR in Crime No.342/2015. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody, from where, he was released on bail. The Police after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC. The petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences and he was acquitted by judgment dated 28.1.2019 passed by 4th Additional Session Judge, Chhindwara in S.T. No.277/2015.

3. It is submitted that on the basis of criminal case which was registered against the petitioner, a departmental inquiry was initiated and following two charges were framed that (i) The petitioner had remained in jail from 6.8.2015 to 12.8.2015 which is indicative of hostile and indecent behavior and accordingly, the petitioner has violated Rule 3 (1) (iii) of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rule, 1965 and (ii) the petitioner was repatriated / released from deputation by order dated 30.5.2015 but he did not submit his joining in the parent department and went on unauthorized absence from 31.5.2015. Thus, he remained on an unauthorized absence for a period of 105 days i.e. 31.5.2015 till 13.9.2015 which is indicative of gross negligence and thus, violated Rule 3 (1) (ii) of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rule, 1965.

4. It appears that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the charge sheet in spite of multiple opportunities given to him. Accordingly, a departmental inquiry was directed and inquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed. The inquiry officer after completing the inquiry submitted his inquiry report and held that both the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was received by him on 13.7.2016. In spite of that, he did not submit his reply. A reminder was given to submit his reply but he did not file any reply. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded punishment of removal from service and the period of unauthorized absence was treated as no work no pay and the period of suspension i.e. 6.8.2015 till 15.10.2016 (date on which the order of punishment was passed) was treated as suspension.

5. Challenging the impugned order of punishment it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that subsequently by judgment dated 28.1.2019 passed by Fourth Additional Session Judge, Chhindwara in ST No. 277/15, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC, therefore, it is clear that very basis for holding departmental inquiry has lost its foundation and thus, it is submitted that the order of removal from service be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service.

6. Per contra, Counsel for the State has supported the removal of petitioner from service. It is submitted by counsel for the State that it is clear from the judgment passed by Fourth Additional Session Judge, Chhindwara that an agreement of marriage was also executed by the petitioner which is clearly indicative of fact that he had giv