Gokul Singh Mandot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service vide order dated 30.5.2024 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ujjain, following a departmental enquiry arising out of allegations of misconduct including contacting a female constable/victim and assaulting her. His departmental appeal was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Ujjain, vide order dated 20.11.2024, without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted on merits by the criminal court vide judgment dated 23.10.2024 in the criminal case registered under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506 and 323 IPC, arising out of the same set of facts.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, contending that the appellate authority failed to consider his acquittal by the criminal court and that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the minor allegations framed in the departmental enquiry. He further urged that he was not given a proper opportunity to lead evidence in his favour during the departmental proceedings, and that the victim's oral evidence alone was relied upon despite her credibility being rejected by the criminal court.

The petitioner relied upon Supreme Court decisions in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446 and Ramlal vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) 1 SCC 175, as well as a Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hemant Verma vs. Home Department, in support of his submissions on the effect of acquittal in criminal proceedings on departmental enquiries and proportionality of punishment.

Catchwords: departmental enquiry · dismissal from service · acquittal in criminal case · same set of facts · proportionality of punishment · Sub Inspector of Police · opportunity to lead evidence · Article 226 · writ petition · service law