Hukum Singh Bisen vs Union Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
1 MP-3937-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 3937 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010518022025
HUKUM SINGH BISEN
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Choudhury - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar - Advocate (through VC) for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner calling in question the order
dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in O.A. No.1124/2022, whereby the Original
Application preferred by the petitioner challenging the termination order
dated 04.11.2022 has been dismissed.
The brief facts of the case:
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as
Junior Engineer (Telecom) on probation for a period of two years and was
undergoing training under the South East Central Railway. According to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
2 MP-3937-2025
petitioner, he was maintaining a clean service record and had discharged his

duties with integrity and devotion. However, on 12.06.2021, an FIR bearing
Crime No.0400/2021 was registered at Police Station Balaghat against the
petitioner and certain other persons for offences punishable under Sections
413, 419, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66B and 66D
of the Information Technology Act, 2000, alleging that mobile phones had
been purchased from online platforms by using fictitious names and
addresses and were subsequently sold to the public on higher rates. In
connection with the aforesaid crime, the petitioner was called to the police
station and suddenly arrested on 12.06.2021 and remained in judicial custody
till being released by the High Court by granting bail.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police,
Balaghat, vide communication dated 20.07.2021, had duly informed the
Divisional Personnel Officer regarding his detention in judicial custody. The
petitioner thereafter preferred an application for grant of bail before this
Court, registered as M.Cr.C. No.36318/2021, which was allowed vide order
dated 25.11.2021, pursuant to which he was released from custody on
26.11.2021.
4. After his release, the petitioner approached the respondent
authorities for being permitted to resume his duties and training. However,
he was not permitted to join. The petitioner subsequently submitted a
representation dated 08.12.2021 seeking a copy of the show-cause notice
allegedly issued against him. In response thereto, the respondents, vide
communication dated 19.04.2022, supplied him with a show-cause notice
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
3 MP-3937-2025
dated 17.06.2021, alleging unauthorised absence from duty with effect from

11.06.2021. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice on
27.04.2022, contending that his absence was neither deliberate nor wilful, as
he was under judicial custody and was prevented by circumstances beyond
his control from attending his duties or responding to the notice.
5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the criminal proceedings
arising out of the aforesaid FIR culminated in an order dated 10.03.2022
passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, whereby the
charges against him were dropped. The petitioner also filed O.A.
No.640/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, seeking
permission to join his duties and training. However, during the pendency of
the said proceedings, the respondents issued the termination order dated
04.11.2022, thereby rendering the aforesaid Original Application infructuous.
Subsequently, the FIR registered against the petitioner was also quashed by
this Court vide order dated 31.08.2023 in the proceedings arising out of
M.Cr.C. No.2/2022.
6. The petitioner contends that despite knowing his judicial custody,
the respondents proceeded to issue the show-cause notice dated 17.06.2021
and thereafter terminated his services without properly considering his reply
dated 27.04.2022. He further relies upon the response furnished by the
railway authorities under the Right to Information Act, vide communication
dated 17.12.2024, wherein it was observed that even after submission of the
reply to the show-cause notice following his release on bail, the Division
could have considered his case for taking him back on training and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
4 MP-3937-2025
permitting him to join the next available Phase-I course at IRIS TT. It was

also observed that the period of absence, including the period of judicial
custody of approximately five and a half months, could have been treated as
extraordinary leave under the applicable provisions.
7. Being aggrieved by the termination order dated 04.11.2022, the
petitioner preferred O.A. No.1124/2022 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. However, the Tribunal, vide order dated
26.06.2025, dismissed the Original Application. Hence, the petitioner has
approached this Court challenging both the order passed by the Tribunal and
the consequential termination of his services.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:
8. Shir Akash Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal is contrary to law and the material available on
record. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner
was prevented from attending his duties solely on account of his arrest and
subsequent judicial custody, which was beyond his control. The absence of
the petitioner, therefore, could not have been treated as wilful or deliberate
unauthorized absence.
9. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities were already
aware of the petitioner's judicial custody, as the Superintendent of Police,
Balaghat, had duly intimated the Divisional Personnel Officer vide letter
dated 20.07.2021. Despite having such knowledge, the respondents issued
the show-cause notice dated 17.06.2021 while the petitioner was in custody.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
5 MP-3937-2025
The said notice was not served upon him during the relevant period and was

supplied only on 19.04.2022, pursuant to his representation dated
08.12.2021. The petitioner duly submitted his reply on 27.04.2022; however,
the respondents failed to consider the same in its proper perspective before
passing the termination order.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that the termination order
dated 04.11.2022 is stigmatic in nature, as the foundation of the termination
is the alleged unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty and training.
Once the termination is founded upon an allegation of misconduct, the
respondents were required to conduct a regular departmental enquiry and
afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However,
without conducting any departmental enquiry and without following the
principles of natural justice, the respondents proceeded to terminate his
services, which is legally unsustainable.
11. It is also contended that although the petitioner was a probationer
and undergoing training, the respondents could not have terminated his
services by passing an order founded upon alleged misconduct without
following the procedure prescribed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution
of India. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel placed
reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra
vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36; State of Punjab vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur,
AIR 1968 SC 1089; Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831;
and Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for
Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC 60.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
6 MP-3937-2025
12. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Division

Bench of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of Madhya
Pradesh and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 6010 , to contend that where the
order of termination attributes misconduct or dereliction of duty to an
employee and casts stigma upon his character, such termination cannot be
sustained in the absence of a proper departmental enquiry and an opportunity
of hearing. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision in Brajesh
Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.4834/2015.
13. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner had subsequently culminated in
his favour and the FIR itself was quashed by this Court vide order dated
31.08.2023. The petitioner also drew the attention of the Tribunal to the
communication dated 17.12.2024 issued in response to his RTI application,
wherein the superior railway authority had acknowledged that his case could
have been considered for continuation of training and that the period of
absence could have been regularized by treating it as extraordinary leave.
However, the competent authority failed to consider the said aspect and
proceeded with the termination in an arbitrary manner.
14. On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that the termination
order dated 04.11.2022 as well as the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the
Tribunal deserve to be set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate
the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents:
15. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
7 MP-3937-2025
was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Telecom) and was undergoing field

training when he was arrested in connection with Crime No. 400/2021 and
remained in judicial custody from 12.06.2021 to 25.11.2021. It is contended
that despite issuance of a show-cause notice dated 17.06.2021, the petitioner
remained absent from training and failed to report for duty.
16. It is further submitted that the petitioner was a temporary
employee on probation and his services were terminated vide order dated
04.11.2022 in accordance with Para 301(3)(c) of the Indian Railway
Establishment Code, Volume-I, and the conditions of his appointment, which
permitted termination without assigning reasons. No departmental enquiry
was required in the facts of the case.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that the Central
Administrative Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application,
observing that a probationer has no vested right to continue in service and
that his services could be terminated during the probation period by giving
due notice. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the impugned
order and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
18. The facts of the case are not in dispute that the petitioner was
appointed as Trainee/Temporary Trainee JEE/TELE (designation) in pay
band Rs.35400/- (STIPEND), vide order dated 14.08.2020, and he was
posted in S&T Department of Nagpur Division, SEC Railway. He was sent
for Online initial training w.e.f. 07.09.2020 to 01.10.2020, and thereafter, he
was sent for Field training commencing from 01.01.2021. The petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
8 MP-3937-2025
joined at IRISET Secunderabad from 21.06.2021 as per the training

schedule. He worked in the field up to 10.06.2021; thereafter, he remained
absent w.e.f. 11.06.2021. He was arrested by the Balaghat police on
12.06.2021 in connection with FIR No.400/2021 registered at Police Station
Balaghat Kotwali under Sections 413, 419, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 66B and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The petitioner was released on bail on 25.11.2021 by the High Court under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. After release on bail, he immediately reported to
the Senior DSTE on 29.11.2021 alongwith copy of the FIR as well as bail
order. He also informed the aforesaid fact to the Senior DPO office on
08.12.2021. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Senior
Divisional Personal Officer on 27.04.2022. The petitioner was informed
about the show-cause notice dated 17.06.2021. The petitioner requested the
supply of the show-cause notice so that he can give a reply. By the show-
cause notice dated 17.06.2021, the petitioner was called upon to report for
training within 7 days.
19. Admittedly, the notice was issued during his custody period;
therefore, it was not served. After release on bail, when the copy of the
show-cause notice was provided to him, he submitted a reply on 27.04.2022.
Thereafter, vide order dated 04.11.2022, the petitioner was terminated from
service, treating it to be unauthorised absence from duty in pursuance of Para
3 of offer of appointment and Rule No.301(3)(c) of I.R. Estt. Code Vol.-1 on
completion of one month's notice period. The petitioner challenged the FIR
before this Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
9 MP-3937-2025
20. The petitioner challenged the termination by way of Original

Application before the Tribunal and, during pendency the said O.A., M.Cr.C.
was filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR
No.44/2021, which came to be allowed. Vide order dated 31.08.2022, this
Court has quashed the FIR, as, on the basis of the allegation in the FIR, no
offence against the petitioner is made out. Since the FIR was quashed, it is
now to be treated that the petitioner has never been prosecuted in a criminal
case.
21. The question is whether the period of police custody, which has
not been merged into the period of a sentence awarded after conviction and
this petitioner is to be treated as absent on the said period. Admittedly, the
petitioner was arrested on 12.06.2021, and just one day before, he was on
duty. According to the petitioner, he was called by the SHO Kotwali in
pursuant to the FIR, and he visited the police station; there he was taken into
custody. Therefore, he had no occasion to inform the superior officers about
his absence from duty due to arrest. The petitioner had a valid reason for not
attending the duties due to his sudden arrest in an FIR which has been
quashed by the High Court. Hence, it cannot be treated that the petitioner was
willfully absent from the field training/duties. The absence was beyond his
control. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B.
Parmar v. Union of India reported in [(2012) 3 SCC 178], every absence
from duty cannot be termed as misconduct unless it is demonstrated to be
willful and contumacious. The absence here was forced by an arrest beyond
the petitioner's control, completely denuding it of the element of willfulness.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
10 MP-3937-2025
In the case of Brahma Chandra Gupta v. Union of India reported in (1984) 2

SCC 188, the Supreme Court of India held that where an employee is
prosecuted and placed under suspension/detained, but is ultimately acquitted
of the charges or proceedings quashed, the employee cannot be blamed for
the period they were kept away from performing duties. Depriving them of
benefits or treating them as a recalcitrant absentee is unjustified when the
prosecution itself was groundless.
22. The respondents have acted mechanically while treating the said
period as unauthorised absence. However, at that time the trial was pending,
and the decision of the respondent was based on an impression that the
petitioner was facing a criminal trial. But during pendency of the Original
Application, the said criminal case had been quashed by the High Court. This
fact has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while upholding
the order of termination. The subsequent events was not taken into
consideration by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Once all the FIR itself
has been quashed, meaning thereby, he was falsely implicated in the case,
and the custody was not warranted. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
benefit of a clean discharge from all the charges levelled against him. Hence,
the termination, which is based on unauthorized absence, cannot be treated as
willful absence. It is trite that an adjudicatory body must take cognisance of
events that fundamentally alter the substratum of the lis, as held in the case
o f Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers , reported
in (2004) 11 SCC 168 by the Apex Court. Once the FIR stood quashed, the
very foundation of the petitioner's arrest and detention evaporated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90300
11 MP-3937-2025
Consequently, the termination of the petitioner's services, founded entirely

on an alleged willful absence during the period of such detention, is
unsustainable in law.
23. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order
dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur
Bench, in O.A. No.1124/2022 and the termination order dated 04.11.2022
are hereby quashed. The petitioner be taken back into the service with all
consequential benefits except back wages.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
ak
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
17:59:57