IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 17884 of 2023 MAUSAM NIRAPURE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chansoriya - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Praveen Namdeo - G.A. for the State.

ORDER This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“7.1 That, the petitioner have not knowledge for related judicially and departmental process for reinstatement, there is the reason he cannot approach to the Hon'ble court, so May kindly condition of the petitioner and situation of the case passed the reinstatement order in favour of the petitioner.

7.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent no. 3 to grant pensioner benefit of service during grade of termination order between dated of filing.

7.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 30.006.2017 and 25.08.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 and 2 respectively.

7.4 Any other relief or writ or direction or order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper looking the facts and circumstance of the case is awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the litigation.”

2. The facts as detailed in the body of the petition reflect that the petitioner was appointed on a compassionate basis vide order dated

17.11.2011 contained in Annexure P/1. In 2016, an incident took place pursuant to which a criminal case was registered against the petitioner vide crime no. 392/2016, and on a similar set of facts, departmental proceedings were instituted against her. The petitioner was dismissed from the services vide order dated 30.06.2017, contained in Annexure P/2, finding him guilty of violation of provisions of the M.P. Police Regulation. Petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Hoshangabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal, which was also turned down vide order dated 15.01.2018. However, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 03.04.2018 contained in Annexure P/4, pursuant to which the petitioner preferred a representation before the authorities for her reinstatement in service. Petitioner also approached this Court by way of the W.P. No. 28143 of 2022, which got disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. The said representation of the petitioner was turned down vide order dated 02.07.2023 contained in Annexure P/8. Hence, aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred this appeal.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders passed by the authorities are arbitrary, illegal, and passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is argued by the counsel that the charges on which the departmental proceedings were concluded are the same charges on which the criminal trial was instituted against the petitioner, and in the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner got a clean acquittal. Hence, the orders passed by the authorities deserve to be set aside. The counsel in support of his arguments relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Captain M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679.

4. Per Contra, counsel for the State/respondent contends that the disciplinary enquiry was held in accordance with the law and the impugned orders were passed after affording proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at all stages of the proceedings. It is further argued that the acquittal of the petitioner due to non-availability of any evidence before the criminal court would not come to her rescue in the matter of dismissal on the basis of report of enquiry officer before whom there is ample evidence, and thus no fault can be found in departmental enquiry which was concluded prior to the order of acquittal. In support of his conte