Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mandheer Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118
1 WP-10329-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10329 of 2024
MANDHEER SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dilip Awasthi - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.4, whereby he has been found unsuitable for appointment on the post of Constable on account of his involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner has challenged another order, dated 31.08.2023, (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent no.4 whereby his appointment on the post of Constable has been cancelled. He has also prayed for consequential benefits.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner participated in Police Constable Recruitment Process-2020. He successfully passed the written test as also the physical test and was allotted District- Balaghat for his posting. Later on, vide order, dated 05.12.2022, (Annexure P/5) the petitioner was appointed as Constable and was posted at Balaghat. As per clause 5 of appointment order, the petitioner's appointment was Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 2 WP-10329-2024 subject to verification of his criminal antecedents. The petitioner accordingly joined on the post and was sent for training at PTS, Tighra, Gwalior.
3. The petitioner submitted his attestation form on 30.11.2022 (Annexure R/1). He had not disclosed registration of criminal case against him. However, during verification, it was found that a criminal case was registered against him at Police Station- Dimni, District-Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 & 327 of IPC. It was alleged against the petitioner that on 20.03.2021 at around 5:00 PM, he allegedly demanded Rs.100/- from the complainant-Satendra Singh Bhadoriya who was a bus conductor and was gathering passengers near Bade Gaon Tiraha, Ambah. It was alleged that when complainant refused to give money, the petitioner abused him, threatened him and assaulted him with kicks and fists causing him injury. The FIR was registered on next day i.e. on 21.03.2021 at around 9:45 am. After investigation, challan was filed by Police on 31.07.2021 (Annexure P/8). The criminal case ended with acquittal of petitioner under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. vide order, dated 14.12.2022, (Annexure P/6) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena. The matter was compromised in relation to other offences which were compoundable while the complainant turned hostile in relation to offence under Section 327 of IPC. The petitioner thus stood acquitted in view of compromise between the parties.
4 . The matter was placed before the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 08.08.2023. The Screening Committee opined that the offence under Section 327 IPC alleged against the petitioner, involves moral Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 3 WP-10329-2024 turpitude and as per instructions issued by the State Government vide circular dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure P/7), he is unsuitable for appointment. Accordingly, the impugned orders have been passed by respondent no.4 on 31.08.2023 declaring the petitioner unsuitable for the post and consequently cancelling his appointment order. Para 2, 3 & 4 of the order being relevant and decisive for this case are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"2. च र स यापन के दौरान पाया गया क अ यथ मंधीर िसंह के व थाना दमनी जला मुरैना म अपराध मांक 57/19 धारा 327, 323, 294, 506 भाद व का करण पंजीब हुआ है , जसका ववरण िन नानुसार है :-
(i) फ रयाद सते िसंह भदौ रया ारा रपोट दज कराई क मुरैना से पोरसा चलने वाली बस म वह उस समय क डे टर करता था। दनांक 20.03.2021 को बस के मुरैना से पोरसा आते समय बड़े गाँ व ितराहे के पास सवार बैठाने जब बस खड़ थी। तो अ यथ ने शराब पीने के िलए पए वसूलने चाहे और मना करने पर न िसफ गािलयां दे कर झगड़ा करने और धमकाने लगा, ब क कंड टर के साथ लात घूस ं ो से मारपीट क ।
(ii) याियक म ज े ट थम ण े ी जला मुरैना ारा दनांक 14.12.2022 को धारा 294, 323, 506 भाग-2 भाद व म राजीनामा के आधार पर एवं धारा 327 भाद व म फ रयाद ारा प वरोधी होने से संदेह का लाभ दे कर अ यथ मंधीर को दोषमु कया।
3. करण छानबीन सिमित म ी ण हे तु बैठक दनांक 08.08.2023 को रखा गया, पर ण उपरांत सिमित ने पाया क शासन के िनदश कमांक एफ-17- 01/2002/17/दो/सी-2/ दनांक 24.07.2018 के अनुसार अ यथ पर पंजीब अपराध क धारा 327 भाद व नैितक अधोपतन ण े ी क होकर गंभीर कृ ित क है । अ यथ ारा गु डागद करते हुए शराब के िलए पैसे वसूलने को लेकर लात घूस से बुर तरह मारपीट करने जैसे गंभीर आरोप लगे ह।
4. अ याथ के आचरण से उसक अपरािधक मनोवृ एवं गु डागद क वृ प रल त होती है । उसके व लगे आ ेप और दज अपराध उसके च र क कृ ित क ओर साफ इशारा करते ह, भले ह इन अपराध के वचारण के बाद कुछ भी प रणित हो। पुिलस का कत य कानून का पालन सुिन त करना है । अतः उ यवहार वाले य को पुिलस सेवा के उपयु नह ं माना जा सकता।
5. Challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Screening Committee as also respondent no.4 completely failed in considering the facts of the case in proper prospective. It is his submission that:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 4 WP-10329-2024 i. the incident was of 20.03.2021 at around 5 pm while the FIR was registered on 21.03.2021 at around 9:45 am without there being any explanation for the delay of about 15 hours;
ii. in FIR, omnibus allegations of abusing, threatening and assaulting were levelled;
iii. there was no injury caused to the complainant and therefore invocation of Section 327 of IPC was unwarranted and impermissible; iv. the petitioner was already undergoing selection process and it is unimaginable that he would indulge in any such activity knowing well that it may disqualify him of appointment;
v. in order to avoid any complication in his selection for the post in question, the petitioner entered into compromise. The complainant turned hostile so far as alleged offence under Section 327 IPC is concerned. Thus there is no material against the petitioner to even suggest his involvement in the alleged incident. The petitioner was intentionally roped into only to complicate the matter of his selection;
vi. the offence alleged being compoundable, non-cognizable and bailable, was settled between the parties as a result of which petitioner was acquitted vide order, dated 14.12.2022;
vii. there is no criminal background of petitioner except the complaint made by Satendra Singh Bhadoriya for which also there is no material available on record against the petitioner.
viii. the learned counsel thus, submitted that the petitioner has a good academic career and his false implication in the aforesaid criminal case is would cause him irrepairable injury.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 5 WP-10329-2024 6 . The learned counsel submitted that the screening committee was required to consider all the facts of the case cumulatively while taking decision in the matter. However, his candidature has been cancelled only because of the registration of the aforesaid criminal case. It is his submission that the Committee got influenced by the fact that the offence involved moral turpitude without considering the fact that no such offence is made out based on material available.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Guniram Vs. State of M.P. & others, passed in W.A.No.115/2025 to say that mere suppression of criminal case would not be a ground to cancel candidature. He relied upon Division Bench judgment in the case of Vijay Paras Vs. State of M.P. & others, passed in W.A.No.249/2021 to say that acquittal on the basis of compromise at the stage of Section 232 Cr.P.C. is also clean acquittal. He further placed reliance on order passed by this Court in the case of Arun Pratap Singh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. & others, in W.P. No.19950/2023 to say that the petitioner's involvement in trivial offence should not be a ground to deprive him of appointment.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State supported the impugned action of the respondents and submitted that admittedly the petitioner was involved in the criminal case for offence involving moral turpitude. Referring to the judgment passed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Parvez Khan reported in (2015)2 SCC 591, Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & others reported in Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 6 WP-10329-2024 (2016)8 SCC 471, learned counsel submitted that adjudging suitability of a candidate for the post, is the sole prerogative of Screening Committee and once the committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not suitable for the post, the same would not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review. The learned counsel also submitted that offence alleged against the petitioner was concerning moral turpitude and therefore, the Screening Committee was justified in holding that the petitioner is unsuitable for the post. He also submitted that a candidate honourably acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot claim appointment on the post in question. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
10. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is profitable to refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rohit Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in W.A. No.7/2020 wherein the Division Bench opined that while considering the candidature of a candidate, the Screening Committee is required to consider the nature of allegations, overt act alleged against the candidate, criminal antecedents of the candidate and his overall reputation in the society. The observations made by the Division Bench in para - 12 & 13, being relevant, are reproduced as under:-
"12. Thus what comes out loud and clear from the above discussion is that appointing authority while assessing suitability of a candidate to enter public employment has a heavy responsibility of considering lot many factors. Mere registration of offence which according to the appointing authority involves Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 7 WP-10329-2024 moral turpitude especially when the Court of competent jurisdiction has not pronounced judgment on merits, is not per se good enough to declare a candidate unfit for public employment. 12.1 Employer in discharge of this onerous responsibility is required to inter alia consider following factors:-
(i) The nature of allegations;
(ii) Overt act alleged against candidate;
(iii) Whether the allegations are solely against individual candidate or have been alleged with the aid of section 34/149 of IPC;
(iv) The criminal antecedents of the candidate;
(v) Overall reputation of the candidate in his locality/society etc.
13. The aforesaid factors are illustrative and not exhaustive. There can be other relevant factors which the Competent Authority can consider. The concern of this Court is that it is seen time and again that the appointing authorities are not discharging this onerous duty while considering candidature of persons seeking public employment. The appointing authority often adopts cursory and perfunctory approach. The appointing authority ought to remember that it is dealing with prospects of employment of a citizen of the country, which if not dealt with appropriately in accordance with the rule of law, can jeopardize the entire future of a candidate and render her/him demoralized."
11. The Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v/s Union of India & Others reported in (2023)12 SCC 317 has also considered the similar issue. It has been held that all the matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and the degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities, must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances into Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 8 WP-10329-2024 consideration, including the nature and type of lapse. Para - 17 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
"17. One distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that the criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post submission of the application form. We have also taken into account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and that the matter was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude. Further, the proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal. As is clear from para 38 in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425], all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities, must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, including the nature and type of lapse."
12.The Apex Court again considered the issue in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 wherein the Court held as under:
"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."
13. Besides the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the Government of Madhya Pradesh through Home Department has issued instructions vide circular dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure-P/4) laying down the instructions to deal with such matters. Clause 6(I)(a) provides as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 9 WP-10329-2024 "6. शासक य सेवा के िलये चयिनत अ यिथयो ारा च र स यापन हे तु भरे गए अनु माणन फाम म आपरािधक पृ भूिम यायालयीन करण तथा उसम दोषमु या दोषिस क जानकार जानबूझकर अथवा ु टवश अथवा अ ानतावश िछपाये जाने से शासक य सेवा म िनयु हे तु अ जत होने वाली अहता के वषय पर सम प से वचार कर रा य शासन ारा त काल भाव से िन नानुसार नीितगत िनणय िलए गये है :-
I- *** *** ***
a. य द अ यथ के व पंजीब करण म नैितक अ ोपतन का आयाम
शािमल है और उसे नैितक अ ोपतन क धारा म यायालय ारा दोषमु कया
गया है । अ यथ ारा इसका उ लेख अनु माणन फॉम म कया गया हो अथवा नह ऐसे करणो म अपराध क कृ ित एवं दोषमु क अव था तथा अ यथ क पृ भूिम को दे खते हुये शासक य सेवा के िलये यो य अयो य है , के संबंध म िनयो ा ारा िनणय िलया जावेगा।"
14. Further, clause 6(II)(a) of the circular provides that if the offence alleged is simple in nature and the candidate has been acquitted, he be considered as suitable for appointment in Govt. employment.
15. In view of the aforesaid, it is settled that mere implication of a candidate in criminal case, even for offence involving moral turpitude, would not ipso fact disentitle him unsuitable for the post. The Screening Committee is having an onerous duty to examine the entire matter meticulously before taking any decision in the matter.
16. In the case in hand, the offence under Section 327 IPC is included in the list of offences involving moral turpitude by circular, dated 24.07.2018. Section 327 IPC provides for punishment for offence of voluntarily causing hurt to extract money. The petitioner, who was already undergoing selection process for appointment on post of Constable, is alleged to have demanded Rs.100/- for consuming liquor from complainant Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 10 WP-10329-2024 and on being refused, he assaulted him with kicks and fists. This appears to be prima-facie unnatural. Further, if the charge under Section 327 IPC is not there, the petitioner would have been appointed by virtue of clause 6(II)(a) of circular.
17. The petitioner has been disqualified only because the offence alleged against him was involving moral turpitude. Thus, it is to be seen as to whether the act alleged against the petitioner would constitute moral turpitude or not. This needs to be examined keeping in view the fact that the petitioner alleged to have assaulted complainant by kicks and fists and there is no injury reported. The Apex Court considered this aspect in the case of SBI v. P. Soupramaniane reported in (2019)18 SCC 135, and held as under:
"16. There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences which can straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of Corruption of Act, the NDPS Act, etc. The question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorised as a crime involving moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an assault. It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorised as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case, there was no motive for the respondent to cause the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the respondent is Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 11 WP-10329-2024 not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from service."
18. Thus, looking to the act alleged against the petitioner coupled with the nature of injury suffered by complainant, the Screening Committee was required to consider as to whether the offence alleged against the petitioner would constitute moral turpitude or not. Prima facie it would not. However, the committee led away with the fact that offence under Section 327 IPC is categorised as offence involving moral turpitude and mechanically held petitioner unsuitable for appointment without considering the nature of allegation made against him.
19. The Screening Committee was required to consider the facts in totality while taking a decision with regard to petitioner's suitability for appointment. However, a bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that except by observing that the offence alleged against the petitioner was a serious one involving moral turpitude, no consideration is made so far as the facts of the case are concerned. It is thus seen that the Screening Committee failed in discharging the onerous duty cast on it by virtue of Apex Court judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and the circular, dated 24.07.2018.
20. As has been held by Courts many a times, mere allegation against the candidate would not be sufficient to hold him unsuitable for appointment. The authority was required to meticulously appreciate the facts of the case and it is only when there is some material before the authority against the candidate, he could have been held unsuitable. From perusal of impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 12 WP-10329-2024 order, it is evident that the authority has failed to even examine the facts of the case and was led away with the fact that offence alleged against the petitioner was the one involving moral turpitude.
21. The learned Government Advocate submitted that employer is having a right to consider the suitability of a candidate for appointment in Government service. This discretion of employer can never be doubted. However, this Court can examine the manner in which the discretion is exercised by the authority. If the facts of the present case are seen, learned Trial Court has already acquitted the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents argued that it is not a clean acquittal and has resulted because of compromise. The learned counsel is factually correct. However, that by itself would not absolve the Screening Committee of its obligation to consider the suitability of candidate appreciating various factors as pointed out by Division Bench in the case of Rohit Singh Raghuvanshi (supra). The committee was dealing with prospects of employment of a citizen of the country, which if not dealt with appropriately in accordance with the rule of law, can jeopardize the entire future of a candidate and render him demoralized. It is thus found that the committee has adopted cursory and perfunctory approach.
22. At this stage, it is profitable to refer Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in (2019)17 SCC 696 . It was a case where the Apex Court was considering denial of appointment to the petitioner in judicial services. The Apex Court held in para 5, 6 & 9 as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 13 WP-10329-2024 "5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.
6. That the expression "moral turpitude" is not capable of precise definition was considered in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, opining : (SCC p. 21, para 12) "12. "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing."
*** *** ***
9. In the present proceedings, on 23-3-2018, this Court had called for a confidential report of the character verification as also the antecedents of the appellant as on this date. The report received reveals that except for the criminal case under reference in which he has been acquitted, the appellant has a clean record and there is no adverse material against him to deny him the fruits of his academic labour in a competitive selection for the post of a judicial officer. In our opinion, no reasonable person on the basis Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 14 WP-10329-2024 of the materials placed before us can come to the conclusion that the antecedents and character of the appellant are such that he is unfit to be appointed as a judicial officer. An alleged single misadventure or misdemeanour of the present nature, if it can be considered to be so, cannot be sufficient to deny appointment to the appellant when he has on all other aspects and parameters been found to be fit for appointment. The law is well settled in this regard in Avtar Singh v. Union of India [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425]. If empanelment creates no right to appointment, equally there can be no arbitrary denial of appointment after empanelment."
23. In the case in hand also, apart from the facts stated above, the Screening Committee could have verified other antecedents of petitioner while reaching to a conclusion. He could not have been ousted solely on the basis of solitary instance of alleged offence under Section 327 IPC without considering as to whether such offence is made out against him and would amount to moral turpitude. The Committee was required to record reasons after discussing the facts of the case. However, except implication of petitioner in criminal case, nothing has been stated in the impugned order. The Committee has failed to discharge its onerous duty while considering petitioner's suitability for appointment.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents is correct in submitting that mere acquittal in the criminal case would not be sufficient to hold the petitioner suitable for the post in question. However, it is equally correct that holding him unsuitable only because of the aforesaid criminal case without considering the facts of the case, would also be unfair and unreasonable. In fact, it is impermissible in view of the judicial pronouncement cited Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3118 15 WP-10329-2024 hereinbefore as also as per the policy of 2018.
25. In view of the aforesaid, it is found that the Screening Committee has failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case and has mechanically cancelled the petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of Constable. The Screening Committee got influenced by the factum of registration of the aforesaid case which involved moral turpitude. However, the committee failed to appreciate the relevant facts of the case. Consequently, the orders dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) are set- aside. The matter is remitted to the Screening Committee for fresh consideration in accordance with observations made hereinbefore.
26. Let the decision be taken in this regard within a period of 90 days' from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE bj/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 01/29/2026 10:38:45 AM