Can you lose your job for being chargsheeted? Madhya Pradesh Court says no, saves man facing dowry charge 

“It is not a thumb rule that in every case of conviction, an employee is to be dismissed from service,” the high court said in its March 6 order. 

‘Discharge from service following matrimonial dispute’

• The petitioner stands on a better footing since he is not convicted yet and only a FIR has been registered against him, and a chargesheet has been filed. 
• It has been placed on record that after investigation, the chargesheet (challan) was filed, and the trial is pending before the court. 
• The petitioner was discharged solely on account of the filing of the challan in the criminal case lodged by his wife.

• There is no discharge certificate issued by the authority concerned in relation to the petitioner. 
• When the approval of the higher authority is required before ordering the discharge of a home guard sainik, the matter needs to be considered by the higher authority before granting approval.
• This is necessary when the petitioner is being discharged from his job merely on the filing of a challan in the criminal case, and he is not even held guilty of the allegations made against him till now. 

‘Matrimonial dispute, criminal case and discharge’

• The petitioner was working as a home guard sainik and was posted in the office of the district commandant of Guna. 
• An FIR was registered against him at the instance of his wife for offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the  BNS on October 10, 2024.
• The petitioner intimated to his employer about the registration of FIR as required under rule 23(f) of the M.P. Home Guard Rules, 2016, through a communication on October 12, 2024 and further on September 29, 2025.
• A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in January 2026, asking him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him. 
• The petitioner submitted his reply as requested and informed the employer about the circumstances in which, based upon certain matrimonial disputes, the FIR has been lodged against him. 
• Subsequently, he was discharged from service in January 2026.

‘No moral turpitude, deserves reinstatement’ 

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Nirmal Sharma submitted that the petitioner was discharged by way of punishment. 
• He also submitted that the punishment could not have been imposed upon the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing. 

• He further submitted that the offences for which the FIR has been registered do not involve moral turpitude and, therefore, discharge of the petitioner based on such FIR is illegal. 
• He further argued that the petitioner has explained the circumstances in which the FIR has been lodged against him; however, the authority concerned failed to consider the explanation while passing the said order. 
• He thus submitted that the said order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner deserves reinstatement.

‘Discharged as per the procedure prescribed’

• On the contrary, general advocate Sohit Mishra argued that the said action of the authority concerned has been taken against the petitioner, which does not contemplate any inquiry to be conducted. 
• Mishra submitted that once the challan is filed in the criminal case against the petitioner, he is liable to be discharged. 
• It is further submitted that the petitioner was given a show cause notice by the employer, and after taking his reply, the said order was passed. 
• The government advocate insisted that the said discharge order is in consonance with the procedure prescribed and does not warrant any interference.