Accepting Reduced Penalty To Resume Job Doesn't Bar Employee From Challenging Subsequent Revisional Order Terminating Employment: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who accepts a reduced penalty under an appellate order reinstating him in service does not forfeit the right to challenge a subsequent revisional order terminating his employment. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 439]

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed:

"The argument raised by the respondents that because the petitioner did not challenge the DIG's appellate order dated 14.03.2022 before a higher authority, he must be deemed to have accepted his guilt and therefore, cannot assail his subsequent revisional removal is wholly misconceived. An employee who accepts a reduced penalty of stoppage of one increment under an appellate reinstatement order in order to secure his livelihood and return to duty does not forfeit his right under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge a subsequent suo motu revisional order that takes away his very employment". 

The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the MP Police Department on May 30, 2011. During his school and college years, two criminal cases were registered against him in 2003 and 2006, respectively. He was acquitted in both cases in 2005 and 2008.

While submitting the application for his recruitment as Constable in 2011, the petitioner answered no to questions concerning registration of criminal cases. However, in his subsequent attestation form, he answered yes to questions regarding past prosecution or preventive proceedings against him. 

Following his selection, the police authorities conducted character verification through concerned police stations and the Special Branch, which submitted favourable reports. He was consequently appointed as Constable and served the department for over a decade, earning 119 rewards against solitary minor censure.

In 2017, he applied for the Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination and was selected on merit. However, his candidature was rejected on the ground that his acquittal was not honourable or clean. 

After the petitioner challenged the rejection of his sub-inspector candidature before the High Court, the police authorities were directed to reconsider his case. Upon reconsideration, he was again declared unfit for the post of Sub Inspector through an order dated June 27, 2020. He challenged this order in a 2021 petition. Immediately after, the Superintendent of Police ordered a preliminary inquiry on July 22, 2020, into the petitioner's 2011 character verification. 

Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for allegedly suppressing the two criminal cases. However, the departmental appellate authority, through an order of March 14, 2022, partly allowed his appeal and set aside the removal penalty and directed reinstatement. It substituted the punishment with a reduction of pay equivalent to one annual increment with cumulative effect and treated the intervening period on the principle of 'No Work, No Pay'.

The petitioner accordingly rejoined duty. However, within seven days, the ADGP initiated suo motu revisional proceedings and, through an order dated April 4, 2022, set aside the appellate authority's decision and restored the original punishment of removal from service. His subsequent mercy appeal before the Director General of Police was also rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. 

The court, after framing the issues, noted that the "present controversy erupted after a lapse of nearly ten years".

Referring to the MP High Court case of Kailash Chandra Sirvi v. State of MP [2016 (4) MPLJ 370], the bench reiterated that once an accused is acquitted, the entire crime registered against him stands wiped off. Thus, the court held that the reason for declaring the petition unfit was "wholly unsustainable in law". 

Further, the court relied on the case of Ravindra Kumar v. State of UP wherein it was held that non-disclosure of criminal antecedents should not automatically lead to rejection; each case must be examined on its own merits. The bench held that the cases in which the petitioner was involved were "minor, non-heinous offences". 

Further, the court rejected the respondent's contention that the petitioner did not challenge the DIG's appellate order and therefore deemed to have accepted his guilt and thus could not assail his subsequent revisional removal. 

The bench further highlighted, "In the facts of the present case, where the two minor cases occurred when the petitioner was a teenager/college student, both ended in acquittal years prior to his 2011 recruitment". 

Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service to the post of constable. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Ayushi Tiwari

For Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Shweta Yadav