Allahabad HC Confirms Removal Over Intoxication, Rifle Misuse Incident

A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta heard a writ petition challenging a disciplinary order of removal passed against a constable who was alleged to have fired a shot from his service rifle while on duty. The petition contested the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent appellate and revisional orders that upheld removal, and raised the contention that acquittal in the parallel criminal trial entitled the petitioner to reinstatement. 

The Court summarized its holding by rejecting the contention that an acquittal in the criminal trial ipso facto required reinstatement, and it observed that the disciplinary finding was supported by cogent evidence including medical proof of intoxication. The State had relied on precedents such as State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Phool Singh and Maharana Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others to contend that an acquittal in criminal proceedings would not automatically set aside a departmental finding, and the judgment examined authorities including Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. C. Nagaraju, Union of India vs. Sitaram Mishra ( "(2019) 20 SCC 588": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 1527), Ajit Kumar Negi vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited, State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh ( "(2020) SCC OnLine SC 886": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 568), Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh ( "2013 (7) SCC 685": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 691) and Anand Kumar vs. Union of India and Another ( "2025 0 AHC 188636: 2025 0 Supreme (All) 3430": 2025 CaseBase(ALL) 903) to frame the legal position on concurrent criminal and departmental processes. The Court noted in terms that "the criminal trial as well as the disciplinary proceedings for identical allegations are two different things and operate in different spheres."  

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the aforesaid judgments, the legal position is crystal clear that the criminal trial and the disciplinary proceedings for the identical allegations operate in different spheres and both are not dependent on each other. Merely because an employee is acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service due to such acquittal in criminal trial. In the recent judgments, after considering the previous judgments of the Apex Court, the Apex Court has categorically observed that merely the facts of acquittal in a criminal trial would not amount to reversal of findings of misconduct which were arrived at in the past proceedings. From the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court it can be safely concluded that wherever charges and allegations were identical and the criminal court has acquitted then it is the duty of the Court to examine whether it was an honorable acquittal or benefit of doubt has been given to such employee. Even if there is an honorable acquittal the Court is required to examine whether the witnesses produced before the Disciplinary Authority and the criminal trial were the same. If there were the same set of witnesses then on the basis of the evidence led in the criminal court has acquitted then in such cases the reinstatement can be granted by the Court. However, if the court on scrutiny finds that the witnesses examined during the disciplinary proceedings have supported the allegations, however the same set of witnesses did not support the criminal trial or that there are some additional facts which have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings and which were not the subject matter of trial then the court should not interfere in such concluded disciplinary proceedings." 

Background 

The petition arose from an incident in December 2011 when a shot was discharged from the petitioner’s service rifle while he was posted as a constable at Police Line, Firozabad, after which an FIR was registered for an offence initially under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and eventually charges were framed under sections 286 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A departmental preliminary inquiry found medical evidence of intoxication and recorded guilt, and the Inquiry Officer recommended removal; the Disciplinary Authority issued a removal order which was confirmed on appeal and a revisional petition was dismissed as time barred. The petitioner relied on an acquittal in the criminal trial and on the Division Bench decision in a related writ to argue that identical charges and evidence required reinstatement. The State countered that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials served different objectives and standards and relied expressly on State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Phool Singh and Maharana Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others to resist reinstatement. 

The Court examined whether the departmental evidence was identical to the criminal trial, referred to the principles in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on simultaneous proceedings, considered Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. C. Nagaraju and Union of India vs. Sitaram Mishra ( "(2019) 20 SCC 588": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 1527) on when ex parte departmental proceedings may be vitiated, and treated authorities such as State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh ( "(2020) SCC OnLine SC 886": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 568), Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh ( "2013 (7) SCC 685": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 691) and Anand Kumar vs. Union of India and Another ( "2025 0 AHC 188636: 2025 0 Supreme (All) 3430": 2025 CaseBase(ALL) 903) concerning standards of proof, judicial restraint and proportionality in disciplinary review. The Court found that key prosecution witnesses had turned hostile in the criminal trial and that the acquittal rested on those facts, whereas the departmental inquiry contained independent medical and witness evidence supporting intoxication and negligence. Applying the settled principle that criminal acquittal did not automatically invalidate a departmental finding unless the evidence and witnesses were the same and the acquittal was honourable on merits, the Court concluded that there was no perversity or want of evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the removal order. No interim relief or liberty beyond dismissal was granted. 

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT - A No. - 4116 of 2019
Case Title: Kunwar Pal Singh Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Pawan Kumar Tripathi, Vijay Gautam, Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.), Vinod Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent(s): C.S.C.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 132