Acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not bar dismissal following a valid departmental inquiry.

The appellant, an Assistant Sub Inspector, was accused of de-boarding a passenger from the Rajdhani Express at Kota and looting 4072.700 gm of gold during the night of 07-08/05/2011.

A criminal case was registered under Sections 365, 392, and 34 of the IPC, alongside a departmental inquiry.

Although the appellant was acquitted in the criminal trial on 30.06.2016 due to witnesses turning hostile, the departmental inquiry found him guilty, leading to his dismissal on 11.05.2021.

The appellant challenged this dismissal via a writ petition (W.P. No. 11808/2021), which was dismissed by the Writ Court on 27.01.2026.

The present writ appeal assails that dismissal.

1. Whether an acquittal in a criminal trial by benefit of doubt operates as a bar against departmental proceedings or dismissal based on the same charges.

2. Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and if the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.

The court applied Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 for the maintainability of the appeal.

It relied on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [(1999) 3 SCC 679], establishing that departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously as they operate in different fields.

Under Nelson Motis v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711] and State of Karnataka v. Umesh [(2022) 6 SCC 563], the court held that an order of acquittal does not automatically conclude disciplinary proceedings.

Furthermore, relying on Dy. Inspector Gen. of Police v. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598], the court noted that only an "honorable acquittal," and not one based on "benefit of doubt," affects disciplinary outcomes.

The Court reasoned that the nature of a criminal trial, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, differs fundamentally from a departmental inquiry, which operates on the preponderance of probabilities.

The court observed that the appellant’s acquittal was not "honorable" but resulted from witnesses turning hostile; thus, it did not mandate reinstatement.

Regarding procedural fairness, the record indicated that the appellant was given a full opportunity to file a written statement and cross-examine witnesses.

The Court highlighted that a co-delinquent’s statement and other evidence corroborated the appellant's misuse of official position and the act of loot.

Invoking State of M.P. v. Pervez Khan, the court emphasized that the police is a disciplined force requiring "utmost rectitude," concluding that the gravity of the misconduct (abduction and loot) justified the dismissal.

It found no illegality in the decision-making process of the inquiry and held that the punishment was not disproportionate.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the Writ Court's order and the appellant's dismissal from service.