Filing Of Chargesheet In Criminal Case Doesn't Automatically Warrant Discharge From Service: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the discharge orders of a Home Guard Sainik, while holding that mere filing of a chargesheet in a criminal case does not automatically warrant discharge from service. 

While dealing with the home guard's plea against discharge, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti held,

...he (petitioner) is not convicted yet and only a FIR has been registered against him and challan filed. Thus, while imposing punishment under Rule 24(A) of Rules of 2016, the authority was required to examine the gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the material to prima facie support such allegation. He can also consider any other factor, material for taking decision in the matter. However, from the impugned order, it is evident that the authority failed to consider these aspects and passed order of discharge as if it is automatic on filing of challan.

An FIR was filed against the Petitioner by his wife for cruelty (Section 85), obscene acts and songs in a public place (Section 296), criminal intimidation (Section 351(3)) of BNS, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 

The petitioner, following the MP Home Guard Rules, 2016, intimated about the registration of the FIR to the District Commandant Home Guard. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued, asking why action under Rule 27(2)(f) of the Rules should not be taken against him.  

Section 27 lays down the terms of enrolment and the grounds on which a Home Guard can be discharged from service. 

The petitioner, in his reply, informed of the circumstances under which the FIR was lodged. Subsequently, pursuant to an order dated January, he was discharged from service. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the punishment could not have been imposed on the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Further, it was asserted that the FIR contained no allegation of moral turpitude. 

The court noted that per Rule 23 of the Rules, 2016, if a Home Guard commits any act in violation of the law which falls in the category of a cognizable or non-cognizable offence, he is required to inform the District Commandant within 48 hours. 

Rule 25 of the Rules, the district commandant can impose any punishment provided that he affords the employee an opportunity of hearing as provided under Rule 24. The court emphasised that if an impugned order is passed by way of punishment, it ought to be passed after taking into account the explanation given by the petitioner. 

The bench further highlighted, 

"While imposing punishment, the District Commandant was required to consider the gravity of the allegations made against the petitioner and the material to prima facie support such charge". 

Further, the bench noted that even after conviction, the authority is required to examine the gravity of the allegations and, based upon the same, impose punishment. The bench also held;

"In other words, even after conviction, the authority is required to examine the gravity of allegation in the criminal case and based upon the same, the punishment should be imposed. It is not a thumb rule that in every case of conviction, employee is to be dismissed from service". 

In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner was not yet convicted and only an FIR and a challan were filed. Thus, the court held that the impugned order of discharge did not align with the Rules of 2016 and, therefore, was liable to be set aside. 

The petition was disposed of while remitting the matter to the District Commandant to pass a fresh order taking into account the court's observations. 

Case Title: Hemant Yogi V State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-4682-2026]

For Petitioner: Advocate Nirmal Sharma 

For State: Government Advocate Sohit Mishra 

Click here to read/download the Order