Discharge from service upon the filing of a criminal charge-sheet is not automatic; the disciplinary authority is legally obligated to assess the gravity of allegations and ensure the proportionality of punishment, even when acting under summary discharge rules.

ORDER :

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 27.01.2026, whereby he has been discharged from service on account of filing of challan in a criminal case against him.

2. The petitioner was working as Home Guard Sainik and was posted in the office of District Commandant, Guna. An FIR was registered against him at the instance of his wife for offences punishable under Sections 85 , 296, 351(3) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR was registered on 10.10.2024. As required under Rule 23(f) of the M.P. Home Guard Rules, 2016, the petitioner intimated about the registration of FIR to respondent no.3 vide communication dated 12.10.2024 and further on 29.09.2025.

3. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.01.2026 asking him to show-cause as to why action under Rule 27(2)(f) of the Rules of 2016 be not taken against him. He was asked to furnish his reply within three days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20.01.2026, thereby informing about the circumstances in which, based upon certain matrimonial disputes, the FIR has been lodged against him. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 27.01.2026, whereby the petitioner has been discharged from service. The order also states that the petitioner can prefer an appeal under Rule 26 of the Rules of 2016 within 30 days before the Commandant, Home Guards, Gwalior & Chambal Division. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has been discharged by way of punishment, as the order refers to Rule 24 of the Rules of 2016. It is his submission that the punishment could not have been imposed upon the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel further submits that the offences for which the FIR has been registered do not involve moral turpitude and, therefore, discharge of the petitioner on the basis of such FIR is illegal. He further argued that the petitioner has explained the circumstances in which the FIR has been lodged against him; however, the respondent authority failed to consider the explanation while passing the impugned order. He thus submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner deserves reinstatement.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order. It is submitted by him that the impugned action has been taken against the petitioner under Rule 27(2)(f) of the Rules of 2016, which does not contemplate any inquiry to be conducted. As per his submission, once the challan is filed in the criminal case against the petitioner, he is liable to be discharged. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner was given a show cause notice by respondent no.3 and, after taking his reply, the impugned order has been passed. The learned Government Advocate thus submitted that the impugned action is in consonance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 2016 and does not warrant any interference.

6. In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order itself states that an appeal can be filed under Rule 26 , which clearly indicates that the petitioner has been discharged as a measure of punishment. Even otherwise, if the action is taken under Rule 27, the same is required to b