The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, has clarified that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically guarantee a police officer’s reinstatement in service.
The Court highlighted that criminal trials and departmental proceedings operate on entirely different standards of proof.
The Court observed that,
“A departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding. The fundamental difference between the two is that whereas in a departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of ‘preponderance of probabilities’, in a criminal court the prosecution has to prove its case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.”
The order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta while dismissing a writ petition filed by dismissed police constable Kunwar Pal Singh.
Singh (petitoner) had challenged his removal from service, leaning heavily on his recent acquittal in the parallel criminal case.
The petitioner was posted as a Constable at the Firozabad Police Line back in 2011. Trouble began on December 14, 2011, when he was assigned to present an accused before a local court. While on duty, he allegedly got heavily intoxicated.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-upholds-life-term-burning-case/
Things quickly took a disastrous turn. His loaded service rifle went off, firing a bullet that ended up injuring two civilian bystanders, Buddhpal and Chunnilal. Immediately after the chaotic incident, a medical examination confirmed he had consumed alcohol.
Following the incident, the department launched an inquiry. Despite multiple notices sent to his home, the constable vanished and refused to participate.
Consequently, the disciplinary authority proceeded ex-parte, found him guilty of gross negligence, and sacked him in August 2013.
In this backdrop, the principal issue before the Court was whether his subsequent acquittal in the criminal trial erased the departmental findings. He argued that since the trial court let him go, his termination based on the exact same charges was legally unsustainable.
Upon examining the record, the Court completely dismantled this defense. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgments in State of Rajasthan vs. Phool Singh, Civil Appeal No. 5930 of 2022, order dated 02.09.2022, and Union of India vs. Sitaram Mishra, (2019) 20 SCC 588, the bench noted that acquittals often happen due to lack of evidence, not actual innocence.
The Court pointed out that during the criminal trial, the injured witnesses hostilely flipped their statements and refused to support the prosecution.
The constable was acquitted merely because key witnesses backed out, not because he was honorably cleared of the blame.
In stark contrast, the departmental inquiry possessed ample medical evidence proving his intoxication. The standard there was just preponderance of probabilities, which the department easily met.
Towards the conclusion, the Court expressed its reluctance to interfere with a properly conducted inquiry just because a criminal trial crumbled. The judge noted that the constable had been given every chance to defend himself but chose to hide.
“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,” the Court concluded, emphasizing that returning an erratic officer to the force requires more than a technical pass from a trial court. Thus, it was “not a clean acquittal of the petitioner.”
Accordingly, the High Court refused to quash the termination order and dismissed the petition, sealing the fate of the former constable.
Case: Kunwar Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case No: Writ – A No. – 4116 of 2019
Date of Order: 20.04.2026
Status: Dismissed
