A criminal acquittal may come too late if you failed to defend the departmental inquiry
A government employee facing both a criminal case and a departmental inquiry often makes one dangerous assumption:
“The allegations are the same. I will first fight the criminal case. Once I am acquitted, the departmental case will automatically fall.”
That assumption can cost an employee his entire career.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in Lokendra Singh Sikarwar v. Union of India & Others, W.A. No. 2519/2024, decided on 1 July 2026, Neutral Citation 2026:MPHC-GWL:19142, provides a powerful reminder that acquittal by a criminal court does not automatically wipe out a finding of guilt or punishment imposed in departmental proceedings. The most important practical lesson from the case is even simpler:
If a departmental inquiry has started, contest it. Do not abandon it hoping that a future criminal acquittal will save your service.
And because the strategy adopted during the departmental inquiry may also affect the parallel criminal case, timely legal assistance during the inquiry can be as important as legal representation in the criminal trial.
What happened in Lokendra Singh Sikarwar?
The appellant was a Constable posted with 156 Battalion. An FIR was registered against him for the offence of attempting to commit suicide under Section 309 IPC. He was ultimately acquitted by the criminal court on 13 October 2011.
Meanwhile, departmental proceedings had been initiated against him. The departmental charge alleged that after consuming liquor, he entered the Quarter Guard, obtained a 7.62 mm SLR and fired two rounds, one of which passed through his knee while the other went into the air. But something extremely important happened during the departmental proceedings.
The employee did not file a reply to the charge-sheet. He did not participate in the departmental proceedings. He did not lead evidence in his defence.
The inquiry therefore proceeded ex parte, and he was dismissed from service on 24 January 2006.
Even the dismissal order was not challenged at that stage. His criminal acquittal came several years later. That proved crucial when he subsequently sought reinstatement.
Supreme Court: Criminal Trial and Departmental Inquiry Are Two Different Proceedings
The law is now supported by a long line of Supreme Court judgments.
1. Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764 This is one of the clearest Supreme Court authorities on the subject. The Supreme Court held that acquittal by a criminal court does not prevent an employer from taking departmental action where such action is otherwise permissible under the applicable rules.
The reason is fundamental: criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate in different fields and have different objectives.
A criminal court requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A departmental authority can record misconduct on the basis of the lesser standard of preponderance of probability.
Therefore, criminal acquittal does not ipso facto absolve an employee from departmental liability. (Indian Kanoon) This principle was specifically noticed in Lokendra Singh Sikarwar.
2. A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699. This judgment explains why the two proceedings are different. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of criminal prosecution and departmental inquiry is fundamentally distinct.
A criminal prosecution deals with violation of criminal law. A departmental inquiry examines the employee’s conduct and breach of service discipline.
The rules of evidence and standard of proof applicable to a criminal trial are therefore not automatically applicable to disciplinary proceedings.
The Court also recognised that criminal and departmental proceedings may proceed simultaneously. There is no universal rule requiring departmental proceedings to be stayed merely because a criminal case is pending.
3. Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF, (2019) 7 SCC 797. This judgment is particularly relevant for personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces.
The Supreme Court reiterated the distinction between criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings and referred to the principles laid down in Mohd. Yousuf Miya.
The purpose of a departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline and efficiency in public service. The standard of proof is not the same as the criminal law requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. C. Nagaraju, (2019) 10 SCC 367 This is another extremely important judgment. The Supreme Court reiterated that: Acquittal by a criminal court does not prevent a departmental inquiry or automatically invalidate departmental punishment.
The Court particularly emphasised that where the evidence produced in the departmental inquiry is different from that before the criminal court, the disciplinary authority is not bound by the criminal court’s judgment. (Miss Lucy)
This case is especially instructive because the employee had been acquitted in the criminal prosecution, but there was independent material before the Inquiry Officer. The Supreme Court restored the departmental dismissal. (CaseMine)
The judgment therefore reinforces an important distinction: Acquittal is relevant, but acquittal is not automatically decisive.
5. Union of India v. Dalbir Singh, (2021) 11 SCC 321 The Supreme Court again recognised the difference in standards of proof.
A criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas disciplinary proceedings are determined on preponderance of probabilities.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court relied upon Dalbir Singh while explaining why an acquittal does not automatically make departmental punishment unsustainable.
6. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636 This judgment becomes important where the criminal case and departmental inquiry are running simultaneously.
The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute legal bar against both proceedings continuing together. However, where the criminal charge is grave, involves complicated questions of fact and law, and continuation of departmental proceedings is likely to prejudice the employee’s defence in the criminal trial, staying the disciplinary proceedings may be appropriate.
But even this is not automatic. The circumstances of each case have to be examined.
This is precisely why legal advice should be taken while the inquiry is pending, rather than after punishment has already been imposed.
7. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442
The Supreme Court made another important point: a departmental inquiry should not routinely be stayed merely because a criminal case relating to the incident is pending. Whether the inquiry should continue or be stayed depends upon the particular facts and circumstances.
Therefore, an employee cannot simply assume:
“Since the criminal case is pending, I need not worry about the departmental proceedings.”
That can be a serious mistake.
But There Is an Important Exception: Capt. M. Paul Anthony
The law should not be misunderstood to mean that a criminal acquittal is never relevant to departmental proceedings.
The leading Supreme Court decision is: Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679
The Supreme Court recognised that where the departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution arise from the same set of facts, and the evidence in both proceedings is substantially the same, the result of the criminal case can assume considerable significance.
This is the important exception to the general rule.
The Supreme Court’s later decision in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v. C. Nagaraju itself discussed M. Paul Anthony while explaining that the result may be different where the evidence before the disciplinary authority is different from the evidence before the criminal court. (CaseMine)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court also specifically considered M. Paul Anthony but held that the case before it was distinguishable.
G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446, Another Important Exception
Another important Supreme Court judgment is G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446.
This authority becomes relevant where the departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution are founded upon substantially the same allegations and evidence, and the employee receives a clear acquittal on merits.
The significance of G.M. Tank and M. Paul Anthony is that the proposition cannot be reduced to:
“Acquittal never matters in departmental proceedings.” That would be legally incorrect.
The proper question is:
How closely do the departmental charge, criminal charge, witnesses, documents, evidence and findings correspond?
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v. C. Nagaraju itself discusses G.M. Tank while distinguishing cases where the evidence in the two proceedings was the same from cases where independent evidence supported the departmental finding. (CaseMine)
The Biggest Lesson from Lokendra Singh: Contest the Departmental Inquiry
This brings us to the most important part of the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment.
The High Court observed that merely because the appellant was acquitted by the criminal court did not automatically make his dismissal vulnerable, particularly when he had not contested the departmental proceedings.
This sentence should be taken seriously by every employee facing disciplinary action. Had the employee participated, he could have placed his defence on record. He could have challenged the departmental evidence. He could have cross-examined witnesses. He could have produced defence witnesses and documents.
He could have demonstrated contradictions between the departmental allegations and criminal prosecution.
And, depending upon the facts, he could have challenged an adverse inquiry report and punishment at the appropriate stage.
Instead, an ex parte departmental finding became part of the service record.
A later criminal acquittal could not automatically erase it.
I would like to analyse as to why Legal Assistance During the Inquiry Is So Important
Employees frequently approach a service-law lawyer only after dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement.
That is often far too late. The departmental inquiry is not a formality. It is the stage at which the evidentiary record against the employee is being created. Where a criminal prosecution is also pending, the situation becomes even more delicate.
The employee has to decide: Should the departmental proceedings be contested immediately? Should a stay be sought? Will the defence disclosed in the inquiry prejudice the criminal trial? Are the charges actually identical? Are the witnesses common? Should particular documents be demanded? Which witnesses require cross-examination? Is the Inquiry Officer following the applicable rules? Has reasonable opportunity of defence been provided?
These are strategic legal questions. A wrong decision taken at the inquiry stage may become extremely difficult to repair years later.
Most importantly: An employee should not abandon the departmental inquiry and simply wait for the criminal court.
A Criminal Acquittal Is Not a Time Machine Perhaps the simplest way to understand the judgment is this:
A later criminal acquittal cannot necessarily repair every mistake made during an earlier departmental inquiry.
If you receive a charge-sheet, treat it seriously.
If an Inquiry Officer is appointed, participate effectively. If documents are required for your defence, demand them at the appropriate stage.
If witnesses have to be cross-examined, do not surrender that opportunity without considering the consequences. If the departmental proceedings threaten to prejudice a parallel criminal trial, obtain advice on whether there are grounds to seek a stay.
And if an adverse order is passed, examine the departmental appeal, revision, representation or judicial remedy within the applicable limitation period.
Final Takeaway: Fight the Inquiry Today, Do Not Depend Upon Tomorrow’s Acquittal
The lesson from Lokendra Singh Sikarwar v. Union of India is particularly important for Central Government employees, State Government employees, CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP, SSB and other disciplined services.
An employee facing criminal as well as departmental proceedings is fighting on two different legal fronts.
Success on one front does not automatically guarantee success on the other. Therefore:
Do not ignore a departmental inquiry.
Do not allow proceedings to become ex parte without understanding the consequences.
Do not assume that a future criminal acquittal will automatically restore your job.
Take competent legal advice while the inquiry is still alive, not only after dismissal.
The Supreme Court jurisprudence from Mohd. Yousuf Miya, Capt. M. Paul Anthony, Ajit Kumar Nag, G.M. Tank, Stanzen Toyotetsu, Shashi Bhushan Prasad, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v. C. Nagaraju and Union of India v. Dalbir Singh makes one thing clear: The departmental inquiry itself must be defended. A favourable criminal judgment may subsequently strengthen the employee’s case—but it should never be treated as a substitute for defending the disciplinary proceedings in the first place.
About the author
Ajit Kakkar & Associates, New Delhi, appears before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other high courts, the Central Administrative Tribunal and Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench) in matters related to Service law for Army, Navy, Air Force, BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, Coast Guard, Assam Rifles, GREF, Delhi Police, Civilian Govt Employees and other Govt employees.
