Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
1 WA-1303-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1303 of 2026
YOGESH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Prashant Sharma and Mr. Upendra Yadav - Advocates for appellant.
Mr. Vivek Khedkar - A.A.G., assisted by Mr. Ravindra Dixit - G.A. for
respondents/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia This appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 15-01-2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5719/2017, thereby dismissing his writ petition against the cancellation of appellant's claim for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of constable in police department.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellant lost his father while he was in harness. Appellant filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. He filled up the character verification form also, and duly disclosed the registration of three criminal cases against him. It was the case of appellant that he has been acquitted by the trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 2 WA-1303-2026 Court in all the three cases, but by order dated 11-07-2017, his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of constable was rejected on the ground that since appellant was also tried for offences under Sections 379 and 325 of IPC and said offences come within the meaning of moral turpitude, and as the acquittal of appellant was not clean or honourable, therefore, he cannot be considered for his appointment on compassionate ground on the post of police constable. Order dated 11-07-2017 was challenged by filing W.P. No. 5719/2017 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge after relying upon various judgments passed by the Supreme Court governing the field of appointment on compassionate ground, as well as consideration of the registration/acquittal of the candidate in criminal cases.
3. Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that it is true that out of three cases, appellant was acquitted in two cases on the ground of compromise, but in the third case, injured/victim did not appear, whereas other witnesses had turned hostile, and accordingly, he was acquitted. It is submitted that since in two cases, appellant was acquitted either on the basis of compromise or on the ground that the witnesses had turned hostile, therefore, appellant would never claim that his acquittal in all the three cases was an honourable acquittal, but submitted that in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. vs. Mehar Singh , reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 , as well as Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 , authorities were under obligation to give a specific finding as to whether the allegations made against the appellant would disentitle him for his recruitment to the post of police constable or not. However, it is submitted that by order dated 11-07-2017, his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of police constable Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 3 WA-1303-2026 was rejected only on the ground that the acquittal of appellant was not honourable.
4 . Per contra , appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that the appointing authority has considered that allegations made against the appellant were of moral turpitude and his acquittal was not an honourable acquittal. Accordingly, it is submitted that the employer had considered the fitness of appellant for his recruitment in the police department and has come to the conclusion that with his criminal background, he is not fit for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of police constable.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bhupendra Yadav, reported in (2024) 18 SCC 628 , has held as under:
"15. In this context, we may usefully extract the following observations made in Avtar Singh : (SCC pp. 504-505 & 507-508, paras 29, 36 & 38) "29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal, as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non-Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 4 WA-1303-2026 disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases?
***
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
***
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 5 WA-1303-2026 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
(emphasis supplied)
16. As can be discerned from the above decision, an employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the disclosure made by a candidate. While doing so, the employer must act with prudence, keep in mind the nature of the post and the duties required to be discharged. Higher the post, more stringent ought to be the standards to be applied. Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, the employer is well within its right to examine the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the offence and verify whether the acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended on technical reasons. If the employer arrives at a conclusion that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed or continued in service.
17. In Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, where this Court was called upon to examine the purpose of seeking information with respect to the antecedents of a candidate, it was observed that the same were essential Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 6 WA-1303-2026 so as to ascertain the suitability for the post and the disclosures made in the verification form relating to the character and antecedents of the candidate can result in the following consequences: (SCC pp. 110-11, para 15) "15. When an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can therefore lead to any of the following consequences:
(a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant's fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or (b) above."
(emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 7 WA-1303-2026
18. In State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar where the State Government had invited applications for filling up the post of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Inspectors of Police, the respondent candidate who participated in the selection process, filed an affidavit disclosing pendency of a criminal case against him which was subsequently compounded on a compromise arrived at between him and the complainant under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC"). Though the respondent was selected on clearing the written examination his candidature was rejected. The reasons offered for declining him an appointment were that the candidate selected is required to maintain law and order of the State and it was considered improper to appoint a person having a criminal record. The said decision was overturned by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and the view taken was affirmed by the Division Bench. When the State Government approached this Court in appeal, citing the decisions in Mehar Singh; R.P. Kapur v. Union of India; State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan; Pradeep Kumar; and Avtar Singh, the following observations were made: (Abhijit Singh Pawar case, SCC pp. 742-43, paras 13 & 16) "13. In Avtar Singh, though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.
***
16. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the authorities concerned in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No. 9412 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs."
19. In Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya, where the employer had invited applications for the post of a Technical Helper and on qualifying for the said post, the respondent therein was appointed as a probationer trainee, in the course of his police verification which was a precondition for confirming him to the post, it had transpired that he had been convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 323 and 341IPC but was extended benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released on good conduct. This Court observed that at the time of submitting an application for appointment, the respondent had already suffered a conviction by the competent court which fact was withheld by him and he had filed a false declaration. These facts emerged only after receiving the police verification report. After distilling the law on appointments obtained by fraud or misrepresentation/by suppression of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 8 WA-1303-2026 material facts, this Court proceeded to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and upheld the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, directing reinstatement of the respondent employee and held that said decision was unsustainable in view of the fact that the employee had not disclosed/suppressed material facts and had filed a false declaration.
20. In the captioned case, this Court expressed a view that even where there was a subsequent acquittal, the employee having furnished false information/indulged in suppression of material fact of a pending criminal case, cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. Following are the observations made regarding the credibility of such an employee from the perspective of the employer: (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam case, SCC p. 152, para 14) "14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of trust. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in a catena of decisions such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right."
21. On applying the law expounded by this Court in a series of decisions to the facts of the instant case, we find that the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant State Government and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge who had upheld the order passed by the competent authority, terminating the services of the respondent on the ground that he was candid enough to make a disclosure in his verification form stating that he had been charge- sheeted in a criminal case wherein he was later on acquitted and there was no other criminal case pending against him at the relevant time.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 9 WA-1303-2026
22. We are, however, unable to concur with the aforesaid view. Even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case which was decided by the trial court vide judgment dated 26- 10-2015, on perusing the facts of the said case as noted hereinabove and the observations made in the judgment, quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal. It is evident from the facts narrated that after the charge- sheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the complainant and filed an application under Section 320CrPC, based on which the offence under Section 341IPC was compounded. As for the remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. Section 354- DIPC and Section 11(D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non- compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The respondent was acquitted by the trial court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent's plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits."
In the present case, undisputedly father of the appellant was in police department.
7. So far as the acquittal of appellant in Criminal Case No. 679/2009 registered for offences under Sections 504 and 324 of IPC is concerned, it is clear from the judgment dated 23-01-2015 passed by JMFC, Bhind in aforesaid case that the victim/complainant and witness Sarita Singh were never produced by the prosecution in spite of multiple opportunities granted to the prosecution, whereas Munna Singh (PW2) had turned hostile. According to the injuries sustained by complainant/victim, it is clear that he was given multiple teeth bites by appellant. Why the prosecution did not produce the victim is a mystery, but the fact that father of appellant was in police department cannot be lost sight of.
8. Be that whatever it may be.
9. Appellant himself has cited the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda , reported in (2022) 1 SCC
1. In this case, the Supreme Court has dealt with the aspect "honourable acquittal"
and has held as under:Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 10 WA-1303-2026 " 12. In view of the above, if the acquittal is directed by the court on consideration of facts and material evidence on record with the finding of false implication or the finding that the guilt had not been proved, accepting the explanation of accused as just, it be treated as honourable acquittal. In other words, if prosecution could not prove the guilt for other reasons and not "honourably" acquitted by the court, it be treated other than "honourable", and proceedings may follow.
13. The expression "honourable acquittal" has been considered in S. Samuthiram [State v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] after considering the judgments in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] and R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787] , Raghava Rajgopalachari [State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 1 : (1972) 7 SLR 44] ; this Court observed that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing guilt of the accused is on the prosecution, until proved beyond reasonable doubt. In case, the prosecution failed to take steps to examine crucial witnesses or the witnesses turned hostile, such acquittal would fall within the purview of giving benefit of doubt and the accused cannot be treated as honourably acquitted by the criminal court. While, in a case of departmental proceedings, the guilt may be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, it is thus observed that acquittal giving benefit of doubt would not automatically lead to reinstatement of candidate unless the rules provide so.
14. Recently, this Court in State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 504 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] , relying upon the judgment of S. Samuthiram [State v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] said that acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates on the post concerned. It is observed, acquittal or discharge of a person cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedent. The said issue has further been considered in Mehar Singh [State v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910] holding non-examination of key witnesses leading to acquittal is not honourable acquittal, in fact, it is by giving benefit of doubt. The Court said that nature of acquittal is necessary for core consideration. If acquittal is not honourable, the candidates are not suitable for government service and are to be avoided. The relevant factors and the nature of offence, extent of his involvement, propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future, are the relevant aspects for consideration by the Screening Committee, which is competent to decide all these issues."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 11 WA-1303-2026 It has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 14 of the abovementioned judgment that the Supreme Court in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) has held that the non-examination of key witnesses leading to acquittal is not honourable acquittal, and in fact, it is by giving benefit of doubt.
Similarly, in paragraph 21, it has been held as under:
"21. As discussed hereinabove, the law is well-settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Methu Meda v. Union of India and the Division Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove."
Thus, it is clear that if the witnesses have turned hostile, then it would not automatically entitle the candidate for employment and that too in disciplined force.
10. So far as the question of compounding is concerned, the said aspect has been taken note of by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs. State of M.P., reported in (2018) 2 MPLJ 419 , wherein it has been held as under:
"32. Therefore, in respect of the Questions No. 1, 4 and 5 we hold that decision of Criminal Court on the basis of compromise or an acquittal cannot be treated that the candidate possesses good character, which may make him eligible, as the criminal proceedings are with the view to find culpability of commission of offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of his suitability to the post. The test for each of them is based upon different parameters and therefore, acquittal in a criminal case is not a certificate of good conduct to a candidate. The competent Authority has to take a decision in respect of the suitability of candidate to discharge the functions of a civil post and that mere acquittal in a criminal case would not be sufficient to infer that the candidate possesses good character. Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P. No.5887/2016 (Arvind Gurjar vs. State of M.P.) is overruled. Another Division Bench judgment in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 12 WA-1303-2026 W.A. No.367/2015 (Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others) is also overruled. Jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to examine the decision-making process than to act as Court of appeal to substitute its own decision. In appropriate case, if the Court finds decision-making process is arbitrary or illegal, the Court will direct the Authority for reconsideration rather than to substitute the decision of the competent Authority with that of its own. The expectations from a Judicial Officer are of much higher standard. There cannot be any compromise in respect of rectitude, honesty and integrity of a candidate who seeks appointment as Civil Judge. The personal conduct of a candidate to be appointed as Judicial Officer has to be free from any taint. The standard of conduct in the case of Judicial Officer is higher than that expected of an ordinary citizen and also higher than that expected of a professional in law as well. The same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity."
This Court in the case of Anil Kumar Balmik vs. State of M.P. and others by order dated 02.09.2020 passed in W.P. No.23104/2019(s) has held has under:-
"Compounding of offence" is nothing but an undertaking by the victim to give up the prosecution of the offender."
This Court in the case of Bhagwat Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 08/12/2021 in Writ Petition No.26996/2021 has held as under:-
"8. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he had not suppressed the factum of registration of criminal case and acquittal of the petitioner on the basis of compromise, but it appears that the screening committee after considering the case, found that the petitioner is not fit for police service.
9. By the impugned order, the candidature of the petitioner has been once again rejected on the ground that since the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of compromise, therefore, it cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal. As already held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar (supra), an acquittal on the basis of compromise cannot be treated that the candidate possesses good character, which may make him eligible, as the criminal proceedings are with a view to find culpability of commission of offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of his suitability to the post. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) has held that entering into the police service requires good character, integrity and clean antecedents.
10. Undisputely, it is for the employer to consider the suitability of a candidate. Eligibility and suitability are to different aspects and this Court cannot substitute its finding by holding that the candidate should be held to be suitable. This Court in the case of Anil Kumar Balmik (supra) has held as under:
"Suitability" cannot be confused with "Eligibility". A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madhur Vs. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 13 WA-1303-2026 State of M.P. by order dated 17-4-2018 passed in W.P. 21231 of 2017 has held as under:
The "suitability" cannot be confused with eligibility". In the 'Major Law Laxicon' by P. Ramanatha Iyer about the word following view is expressed-" the word 'suitable' does not require a definition because any man of experience would know who is suitable. However, each case has to be viewed in the context in which the word "suitability" or "suitable" is used, the object of the enactment and the purpose sought to be achieved."
A constitution Bench of Supreme Court in State of J & K vs. Trilokinath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 and another Bench in State of Orissa vs. N.N. Swami (1977) 2 SCC 508 opined that eligibility must not be confused with the suitability of the candidate for appointment. These judgments were considered by Calcutta High Court in 2013 SCC Online 22909 (All b. Ed. Degree Holders Welfare Association vs. State of West Bengal ). In (2009) 8 SCC 273 (Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India) it was again held that suitability of a recommendee and the consultation are not subject to judicial review but the issue of lack of eligibility or an effective consultation can be scrutinized.. The Supreme Court in (2014) 11 SCC 547 (High Court of Madras vs. R. Gandhi) while dealing with appointment on a constitutional post opined that 'eligibility' is an objective factor. When 'eligibility' is put in question, it could fall within the scope of judicial review. The aspect of 'suitability' stands excluded from the purview of judicial review. At the cost of repetition, the Apex Court opined that 'eligibility' is a matter of fact whereas 'suitability' is a matter of opinion. In this view of the matter, when Competent Authority has examined the suitability in the teeth of relevant enabling provision i.e. Rule 6 (3) of Rules of 1961, interference is totally unwarranted.
While exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an Appellate Authority and cannot substitute its own findings.
The Supreme Court in the case of UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya , reported in (2018) 15 SCC 796 has held as under :
18........It is the settled legal position that the courts Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 14 WA-1303-2026 have to show deference and consideration to the recommendations of an Expert Committee consisting of members with expertise in the field, if malice or arbitrariness in the Committee's decision is not forthcoming. The doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative law, was not supposed to convert tribunals and courts into appellate authorities over the decision of experts. The constraints--
selfimposed, undoubtedly--of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become rudderless.""
Thus, it is clear that if a witness has agreed to compromise the matter, then that by itself would not mean that the accused did not commit an offence, but at the most, it can be said that the complainant had decided not to prosecute the accused any further.
11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the acquittal of appellant was not honourable and that fact has also not been challenged by appellant.
12. The authorities have held that the offences under Sections 325 and 379 of IPC are offences involving moral turpitude. In order to dislodge that finding, it was obligatory on the part of appellant to file copy of the charge-sheet to show what are the allegations and how the findings recorded by the employer are erroneous, but admittedly, appellant did not file the charge sheet either before the Writ Court or before this Court. In fact, the charge-sheet of all the three cases have not been placed on record.
13. Under these circumstances, when appellant himself was child of a police personnel, but still three criminal cases were registered against him, then the subjective satisfaction by the employer that he is not fit for recruitment in police department, which is a disciplined force, cannot be said to be erroneous.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-05-2026 06:48:47 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514 15 WA-1303-2026
14. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge did not commit any mistake by dismissing the writ petition.
15. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM