Back
Government Teacher Roop Singh Chadar's Absence, Substitute Duty is Misconduct, Not Cheating: MP High Court
In a significant ruling that clarifies the boundaries between service misconduct and criminal cheating, the has quashed an FIR lodged against a government teacher who allegedly arranged a substitute to perform his duties during his absence. The court held that such conduct, at best, constitutes a departmental infraction and does not attract the penal provisions for cheating under the (BNS).
The Background: A Teacher, A Substitute, and an FIR
Roop Singh Chadar, a teacher with the posted in the Sagar district, found himself in legal trouble after a report in alleged that another person—Vikram Singh Lodhi—was performing teaching duties in his place. An inspection by the confirmed the substitution, leading to Chadar’s suspension and the registration of FIR No. 378/2024 at on , under Section 318(4) of the BNS (the provision dealing with cheating).
The state’s subsequent departmental proceedings, however, took a different turn. A full-fledged disciplinary inquiry found Charge No. 1—the very allegation of substitution—not proved, resulting in Chadar’s exoneration. Despite this clean chit, the department terminated his services on , citing the pendency of the criminal case as the primary reason.
Arguments in Court: Exoneration vs. Criminal Liability
Chadar approached the High Court under , seeking quashment of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. His counsel, , argued that since the foundational allegation of substitution had been demolished in the departmental enquiry, continuing the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the legal process. He pointed out that the FIR lacked the essential ingredients of cheating, such as , , or —elements required under Section 318(4) BNS. The petitioner also highlighted that a co-accused in a similar case had already received relief from the same court.
The state, represented by panel lawyer , opposed the petition, contending that the FIR disclosed a requiring thorough investigation. The government further argued that departmental and criminal proceedings operate independently, and exoneration in one does not automatically extinguish the other.
Court's Analysis: No Ingredients of Cheating
Justice Himanshu Joshi examined the FIR and found its entire basis to be the substitution allegation. Critically, noting that the departmental enquiry had already returned a finding of “not proved” on this charge, the court observed that “the very factual foundation on which the criminal case has been instituted stands substantially eroded.”
Turning to the substantive law, the bench conducted a plain reading of Section 318(4) BNS and concluded that the essential ingredients of cheating—deception, , and consequential or —were entirely absent from the FIR. The allegations, at their highest level, pertained to administrative lapses, not criminal conduct.
Applying the landmark precedent of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (), the court reiterated that where the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in totality, do not constitute any offence, the High Court may exercise its to quash proceedings and prevent .
Key Observations
The court made several pivotal remarks that underscore the distinction between service misconduct and cheating:
“Even otherwise, a plain reading of indicates that the essential ingredients of cheating include deception, and consequential or . The allegations contained in the FIR do not disclose any act of inducement, or attributable to the applicant.”
“At the highest, the allegations may constitute a matter relating to service misconduct warranting departmental action. However, the material placed on record does not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS.”
The bench also stressed the impact of the departmental findings:
“Thus, the very factual foundation on which the criminal case has been instituted stands substantially eroded by the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings.”
The Verdict: FIR Quashed
Allowing the petition, Justice Himanshu Joshi quashed FIR No. 378/2024 and all consequential proceedings against Roop Singh Chadar. The order brings clarity to the treatment of similar cases involving government employees, reinforcing that allegations of absence or substitution, without the specific elements of cheating, must be addressed through service law rather than criminal prosecution.
The ruling is likely to have a deterrent effect on the registration of criminal cases against public servants for conduct that is fundamentally administrative in nature, unless the strict legal ingredients of a penal offence are clearly present.
