Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Assistant Sub Inspector In Gold Loot Case Despite Acquittal

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has upheld the dismissal of an Assistant Sub Inspector accused of abducting and looting over four kilograms of gold from a passenger, holding that an acquittal in a criminal case on the ground of benefit of doubt does not automatically invalidate departmental action.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma dismissed the writ appeal filed by Sultan Singh Nagar, who had challenged the order of the writ court affirming his termination from service. The appeal arose from the dismissal of his writ petition against the punishment order dated May 11, 2021.

Nagar was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Raghogarh in District Guna at the relevant time. According to the case record, during the intervening night of May 7–8, 2011, he along with co-delinquents allegedly deboarded complainant Babu Singh from the Rajdhani Express at Kota Railway Station, abducted him, and looted approximately 4072.700 grams of gold. A criminal case under Sections 365, 392 and 34 of the IPC was registered at GRP Kota, Rajasthan, and a parallel departmental inquiry was initiated.

Although the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, acquitted Nagar and others in June 2016, the acquittal was on benefit of doubt after key prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Following a full-fledged departmental inquiry, authorities found the charges proved and dismissed him from service. His mercy petition was also rejected.

Before the High court, senior advocate M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, along with advocate Mohd. Amir Khan, argued for the appellant that once he had been acquitted in a full criminal trial, the dismissal could not stand. It was also contended that electronic evidence such as CCTV footage and a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act could not be relied upon in departmental proceedings. The State, represented by Government Advocate Ravindra Dixit, defended the inquiry and the punishment.

The bench rejected the contention that criminal acquittal binds disciplinary authorities. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Nelson Motis v. Union of India and State of Karnataka v. Umesh, the court reiterated that criminal trials and departmental proceedings operate in distinct fields with different standards of proof. It observed that “mere acquittal by Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings.”

Significantly, the court noted that Nagar’s acquittal was not an “honourable acquittal” but one based on benefit of doubt. Citing Dy. Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, the bench held that unless an accused is honourably acquitted, such acquittal does not automatically entitle reinstatement. The record showed that several prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, had turned hostile during trial.

On the allegation of violation of natural justice, the bench examined the inquiry proceedings and found that three charges had been framed and that Nagar had been given adequate opportunity to file a written statement and cross-examine witnesses. The court emphasized that under Article 226, judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process and not to reappreciating evidence like an appellate court.

The judgment also took note of statements recorded in the departmental inquiry, including that of a co-delinquent constable who allegedly implicated Nagar in the loot. The court concluded that the findings were based on cogent evidence and that the disciplinary authority had not acted arbitrarily.

In a pointed observation, the bench referred to Supreme Court remarks in State of M.P. v. Pervez Khan that the police force is a disciplined force and must command public confidence. “A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude,” the Supreme Court had observed. Applying this principle, the High court held that in light of the proved misconduct involving allegations of abduction and loot, no sympathetic view was warranted.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the writ court’s order, the Division bench dismissed the appeal as “sans merits” and declined to interfere with the punishment.

Case Title: Sultan Singh Nagar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: February 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma