Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824
1 WP-27231-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27231 of 2023
SHUBHAM SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pravesh Naveriya - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure P/10) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated finding him unfit for employment in terms of Clause-6 of the appointment order. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure P/12) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the appeal preferred by him has been dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his mother was a government employee and after her death, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. The authorities found petitioner to be fit and eligible for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of untrained Forest Guard and accordingly vide order dated 07.04.2021 compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner on the post of untrained Forest Guard. While submitting the application for the grant of appointment the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 2 WP-27231-2023 petitioner has disclosed the fact that he has been acquitted in Crime No.958 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 327, 323 and 506(B) of the IPC vide judgment dated 05.08.2016. He was also acquitted in Special Sessions Case No.10 of 2016 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 vide judgment of acquittal dated 02.11.2016. The petitioner fairly submits that he has given all the correct information to the authorities. He failed to disclose the fact that he has already been acquitted in Crime No.610 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 vide order dated 01.10.2016.
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that a false case was registered out of anger by his father-in-law as he was unhappy with the relationship of the petitioner and his daughter, who is currently the wife of the petitioner. Subsequently, he accepted their relationship and on that basis they solemnized marriage on 15.02.2017 and at present they have been happily married for more than six years and also having a girl child. The marriage certificate to the aforesaid effect has been issued by the authorities, which is filed as Annexure P/4 in the petition. In pursuance to the appointment order, the petitioner gave his joining on 09.04.2021. Thereafter, he was sent to different trainings which he attended with utmost dedication and sincerity.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 3 WP-27231-2023 The Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Cell (Security-2), Bhopal, vide communication dated 28.06.2022 has communicated that the petitioner has only disclosed about one of his offence registered at Crime No. 614 of 2015 and has not disclosed the other offences registered against him. It is further submitted that as the cases registered against falls within the category of moral turpitude and he has been acquitted on the basis of all the witnesses turning hostile, which does not not amount to clean acquittal, hence, on that basis he has been found to be unfit for employment. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 11.07.2022 to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 15.07.2022 denying all the allegations levelled against him pointing out the fact that he has already been acquitted in all three cases that were registered against him, hence, no case is pending against him and he has never been convicted under any offence. All the cases were closed prior to grant of appointment of the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that any incorrect information is supplied by the petitioner to the authorities. The authorities failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and on extraneous considerations have rejected his candidature. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532 and in the case of Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 17 SCC 696 and has prayed for quashment of the impugned orders.
4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions. A detailed reply has been filed countering the petitioner averments. It is contended that the petitioner's case was considered for grant Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 4 WP-27231-2023 of compassionate appointment and the order granting compassionate appointment was issued on 07.04.2021 wherein, in Clause-6 it was mentioned that at the time of character verification of the petitioner if he is found ineligible for employment the services would be dispensed with without any prior intimation to him. It is argued that at the time of filling up the form seeking compassionate appointment the petitioner was required to fill up all necessary information in his handwriting. Clause-13 deals with details and particulars regarding the criminal cases registered against the employee, the petitioner has furnished the information with respect to only one case i.e. Special Sessions Case No.10 of 2016 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 wherein, he was acquitted on 02.11.2016. With respect to registration of other criminal cases against the petitioner no other information has been furnished by the petitioner. Therefore, it is case of suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner. Even in the affidavit which has been submitted by the petitioner, he has disclosed only one criminal case registered against him wherein he has been acquitted, thus, a false affidavit has been submitted by the petitioner before the authorities. After appointment of the petitioner when his character verification was got done it was found that against the petitioner in Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat three criminal cases were registered along with three Istigasa, thus, complete information was not supplied by the petitioner to the authorities. Therefore, in terms of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 5 WP-27231-2023 guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 the case of the petitioner was considered by the authorities in view of aforesaid guidelines and he was found unfit for grant of appointment owing to the fact that he has suppressed the material information. It is not a case wherein after correctly disclosing all the facts and registration of the criminal cases against him and subsequent acquittal in those cases the appointment order was issued to the petitioner. Had it been a condition that the petitioner had disclosed all these facts correctly before the authorities, they would have been in a better position to consider the candidature of the petitioner and thereafter if they found petitioner eligible for grant of appointment the appointment order would have been issued, but the present is the case of clear suppression of fact, therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. The undisputed facts being that the compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.04.2021 to which the petitioner has submitted his joining on 09.04.2021 and he was sent for training. At the time of character verification it was found that the petitioner has submitted incomplete information to the authorities regarding registration of criminal cases against him and his subsequent acquittal. The petitioner has filled up the form which was filed by the authorities as Annexure R-3, wherein under Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 6 WP-27231-2023 Column-13 he was required to disclose the complete facts with respect to registration of criminal cases against him and their subsequent outcomes. The information supplied by the petitioner in Column-13 is as under:-
"13. य द (क) अथवा (ख) म पूछे गये के संबंध म आपके उ र हा म हो तो आप को इस अनु माणन फाम को भरते समय मामले, िगर तार , िनरोध जुमाना, दोष िस तथा द डादे श आ द के पूरे यौरे तुत करने चा हए तथा इस फाम को भरते समय यायालय/ व ालय /शै णक ािधकरण आ द के सम जो मामला लं बत हो उसका व प बतलाना चा हए इस जानकार के अित र जहाँ लागु हो वहाँ िन निल खत यौरे भी दए जायगे।
1. अपराध/आरोप - धारा 376, 366, 363, 327
2. पुिलस थाने म पंजीियत -
3. य द यायालय म चालान तुत कया - वशेष यायाधीश (ए ोिसट ज), बालाघाट गया हो तो यायालयका नाम
4. गामले का मांक, यायालय ारा उसका . . क. 10/2016 िनपटारा कस तार ख को कया गया - 2.11.2016
5. दया गया द ड - दोषमु
6. या दोषमु कर दया गया - हाँ
7. या दोषमु संदेह के लाभ पर आध रत थी या मामला वापस ले िलया गया था (ग) या आप कसी ऐसे संगम या संगठन जो सरकार ारा विध व घो षत कया गया था अथवा कया गया है के सद य है या उससे सहयो जत रहे है य द ऐसा हो तो पूण विश यां दे , जैसे संगम/संगठन का नाम, सद यता अथवा स ब ता क अवधी/आ द/इ या द नह ं ट पणी - अ याथ इस पुनः माणं फाम के उपर द गई चेतावनी नोट कर (अपुण फाम वीकार नह कया जावेगा यायालय से त य के आधार पर दोषमु याशी सेवा के यो य होगा"
7. Along with the said application the petitioner has also furnished an affidavit wherein he has disclosed registration of two criminal cases against him. The relevant extract of affidavit is as under:-
"3. यह क माननीय यायालय मु य यायियक द डािधकार बालाघाट (म. .) के अधीन आ. . मांक 958/16 दनॉक 31.05.2016 मेरा करण चला था जसम मुझे िनणय दनॉक 05.08.2016 को धारा 327 भा.द.स. के आरोप से दोषमु घो षत कया गया है जसक स य ितिल प संल न है ।
3. यह क माननीय यायालय वषेष यायाधीश लिगक अपराध से Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 7 WP-27231-2023 बालक का संर ण अिधिनयम 2012 एवं अनुसूिचत जाित तथा जनजाित अ याचार िनवारण अिधिनयम 1989 बालाघाट (म. .) के अधीन वशेष स . मांक 10/2016 तुित दनॉक 28.01.2016 मेरा करण चला था जसम मुझे िनणय दनॉक 02.11.2016 को धारा 363, 366, 376(2)(ढ) वक प म अिधिनयम 1989 क धारा 3(2)(5) तथा अिधिनयम 2012 क धारा 6 के सभी आरोप से से दोषमु घो षत कया गया है जसक स य ितिल प संल न है ।
4. यह क आज दनॉक तक मुझे कसी भी अपराध के िलये यायालय ारा दोषी नह ं ठहराया गया है और न ह शासक य सेवा म चयन हे तु व जत कया गया है ।"
8. The record which has been produced before the authorities at the time of character verification shows that following cases have been registered against the petitioner:-
"1. अप. . 610/15 धारा 354 (क), 354 भाद व लिगक अपराध से बालको का संर ण अिधिनयम 2012 क धारा 7, 8 एवं एस.सी./एस.ट . ए ट क धारा 3 (1) 11 भाद व का करण पंजीब कर चालान यायालय म पेश कया गया। माननीय यायालय ारा दनांक 1.10.2016 को अरोपी के व आरो पत धारा के संबंध म अिभलेख म कोई सा य व मान नह ं हाने पर धारा 354 भाद व वक प म एससी/एसट ए ट क धारा 3 (1) 11 लिगक अपराध से बालक का संर ण अिधिनयम 2012 क धारा 12 के आरोप म दोषमु कया गया। यायालय म लैिगंक अपराध से बालक का संर ण अिधिनयम-2012 क धारा 12 का भी वचारण हुआ है ।
2. अप. . 614/15 धारा 363,366,376,327 भाद व का करण पंजीब कर बालान यायालय म पेश कया गया। माननीय यायालय ारा दनांक 02.11.2016 को सभी आरोप को संदेह से परे मा णत नह ं कये जाने पर धारा 363,366,376(2) (द) वक प म एससी/एसट ए ट क धारा 3(2) (5) तथा लिगकअपराध से बालक का संर ण अिधिनयम 2012 क धारा 6 आरो पत धाराओं का आरोपा म दोषमु कया गया।
3. अप. . 283/16 धारा 294,323,327,506 बी भाद व का करण पंजीब कर चालान यायालय म पेश कया गया। माननीय यायालय ारा दनाक 05.08.2016 को राजीनामा के आधार धारा 294,323,506 बी एवं धारा 327 भाद व म आरोप संदेह से परे मा णत नह ं हाने पर दोषमु कया गया।
4. अ यथ पर इ तगासा मांक 16/2015, 03/2018, 66/2018 पंजीब है ।"
9. All the detailed particulars regarding registration of criminal cases against the petitioner has not been disclosed, which is reflected from document Annexure R/3. It may be a case that petitioner has been acquitted Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 8 WP-27231-2023 in all cases and never being convicted, but the fact remains that for seeking an appointment the petitioner should have given complete information to the authorities which has not been done in the present case. The information given in the affidavit was found to be incorrect.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has laid down the guidelines for consideration of the cases by the authorities. Paragraph-30 of the judgment reads as under:-
"30. The employer is given "discretion" to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service."
11. The case of Avtar Singh (supra) was followed by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 9 WP-27231-2023 & Another (Writ Petition No.5865 of 2016, decided on 12.01.2018) wherein the Larger Bench of this Court has 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. In this view of the matter, we find that the judgment in Arvind Gurjar's case (supra) holding that it cannot be held that candidate does not have a good character, is not the correct enunciation of law. Consequently, the judgment in Arvind Gurjar's case (supra) is overruled."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, passed in Civil Appeal No. 11356 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.17404 of 2016) by judgment dated 26 th November, 2018 has observed as under:-
"14. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to nondisclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in paragraph 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.
15. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran (supra) is not quite correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance to the respondent. In para 5 of said Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 10 WP-27231-2023 decision, this Court had found that the only allegation against the appellant therein was that he was travelling in an auto-rickshaw which was following the auto-rickshaw in which the prime accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran (supra) thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed from the line of decisions rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and Pradeep Kumar (supra).
17. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities 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 of2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs.''
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 has held as under:-
''11. Entering into the police service required a candidate to be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents. In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, the respondent was acquitted based on the compromise. This Court held that even though acquittal was based on compromise, it is still open to the Screening Committee to examine the suitability of the candidate and take a decision.......
12. While considering the question of suppression of relevant information or false information in regard to criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of criminal case(s) against the candidate, in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others(2016) 8 SCC 471, three-Judges Bench of this Court summarized the conclusion in para (38). As per the said decision in para (38.5), (SCC p. 508) ''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."
13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 11 WP-27231-2023 discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character.
***
17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside."
14. Similarly, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Parvez Khan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that candidate to be recruited to police service must be worthy of confidence of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. Person having criminal antecedents would not fit into said category since even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons likely to erode credibility of police ought not to enter police force.
15. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the case in hand, it is clear that as there is a suppression of fact by the petitioner in the application form, no relief could be extended to him. It is a case of giving incomplete and misleading information to the authorities, which were detected at the time when the character verification of the form filled by the petitioner was done. It is not a simplicitor case that the petitioner had disclosed all information to the authorities and thereafter they have considered the case for grant of appointment to the petitioner. It is a clear case of suppression of fact for Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12824 12 WP-27231-2023 procuring an appointment in the respondents/department. The authorities have rightly considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his candidature. Merely the fact that in a case registered for offence under Section 376, IPC the petitioner has been acquitted because he has solemnized marriage with the victim and has now residing happily that cannot absolve the petitioner from the conduct that he has not disclosed the complete information to the authorities regarding registration of three criminal cases against him and registration of three Istigasa against him. There is no counter given by the petitioner to the aforesaid and the counsel for the petitioner is failed to explain why full information was not given by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the authorities have rightly assessed the case of the petitioner and has rejected his candidature.
16. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE THK Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 25-03-2025 17:08:29