Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aadarsh Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961
1 WP-1248-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1248 of 2024
AADARSH CHOUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Singh
Thakur - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been declared ineligible for police service by the screening committee on the ground that he was involved in a serious offence involving moral turpitude, the present petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Professional Examination Board for filling up the post of Constable (GD) Police Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh through selection examination 2020, the petitioner submitted his candidature for appointment and he was declared as a successful candidate. After declaring him successful, he was allotted district Katni and accordingly he was reported to the office of the respondent No.3. He was subjected to medical examination and he was found fit. Documents were verified by the authorities through their utmost satisfaction. In the attestation form, which was filled on 25.10.2022 in column 12 he had given information regarding registration of an FIR vide Crime No.87 of 2017 for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961 2 WP-1248-2024 offences punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Madhotal, Jabalpur against him. It was also informed that he has faced the criminal trial in Sessions Case No.355 of 2017, which ended in honorable acquittal vide judgment and decree dated 04.01.2021. Thereafter, the order impugned dated 04.01.2024 has been issued by the respondent No.3 wherein it was informed that he is not fit for service in the police department due to registration of a criminal case against him, which involves moral turpitude, further pointing out the fact that the petitioner has a criminal bent of mind, therefore, he was not fit for police service irrespective of acquittal in the criminal trial. It was also informed that for appointment in the police department, a high standard of character, integrity and honesty is expected, therefore, the screening committee has found the petitioner to be ineligible for police service.
3. It is argued that the petitioner was honorably acquitted vide judgment and decree dated 04.01.2021 even prior to filling of attestation form on 25.10.2022. Therefore, there is no basis or evidence available on record for the screening committee to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner being a criminal mindset. The criminal case has resulted into honorable acquittal and, therefore, denying the appointment to the petitioner is per se illegal. It is submitted that the order impugned has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without seeking any clarification from the petitioner. Mere registration of a criminal case which resulted into honorable acquittal after facing a criminal trial cannot be termed as a disqualification for appointment. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.
4. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the authorities pointing out the fact that the screening committee has scrutinized the case of the petitioner and has found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961 3 WP-1248-2024 offences punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Madhotal, Jabalpur, for which, he had faced the criminal trial in Sessions Case No.355 of 2017. Although he has been acquitted in the said case vide judgment and decree dated 04.01.2021, but services in the police department requires a person of impeccable character, integrity and honest and could not be a criminal mindset having any criminal antecedent. The involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case clearly points out that he was involved in a criminal case having moral turpitude. Therefore, mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case gives an impression that he is having a criminal mindset. Placing reliance upon the judgments in the cases Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471; Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Parvez Khan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591, it is submitted that the authorities have rightly considered the antecedents of the petitioner and have rightly passed the impugned order. Therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner applied in the recruitment process and was declared a successful candidate. He was selected for appointment to the post of Constable (GD). He had given full information in his attestation form in column No.12 regarding registration of a criminal case at Crime No.87 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 and 506 of the Indian Penal code at Police Station Madhotal, Jabalpur and faced the trial Court of Sessions No.355 of 2017 wherein he was acquitted vide judgment of acquittal dated 04.01.2021. The authorities thereafter rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that as a criminal case was registered against him for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961 4 WP-1248-2024 serious offence involving moral turpitude, he cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) as in the disciplined police force a candidate should be of impeccable character, integrity and honesty.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been honorably acquitted by the trial court, therefore, there was no occasion for the screening committee to arrive at a conclusion that he is not having impeccable character and they cannot doubt the integrity of the petitioner. He has placed on record the form dully filed by him wherein in column 12, he has clearly disclosed the information regarding registration of an FIR and subsequent acquittal in the criminal case. He has also placed on record the judgment of acquittal before this Court wherein the trial court after due appreciation of evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons including the petitioner and they were honorably acquitted. If the judgment of acquittal dated 04.01.2021 passed in Session Trial No.355 of 2017 is seen, then it is clear that allegation against the petitioner was that he accompanied other co- accused persons with a sword in his hand. There was no allegation of carrying a gun against the present petitioner. The complainant/victim in his examination-in- chief has clearly deposed that the accused persons were not involved in commission of offence and he was declared hostile. He in his cross-examination also has admitted the fact that accused persons appearing in the court were not present at the place of commission of offence. Similar statements were given by prosecution witnesses Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, although they identified the accused but they have denied regarding any information with respect to commission of offence. They were also declared hostile. The trial court has considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has honorably acquitted the petitioner along with other accused person. This goes to show that the petitioner was involved in a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961 5 WP-1248-2024 false case, therefore, the observation made by the screening committee regarding the petitioner, is unsustainable. There should be cogent material available on record to comment upon the character as well as integrity of the petitioner.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in 2023 Supreme (SC) 167 wherein a similar proposition was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance upon the judgment passed in the cases of Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541 and R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1964 SC 787 and it has been held that mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held has to be honourable. As such the impression "honourable acquittal" or "acquitted of blame" and "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code and it is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourable acquittal".
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others vs. Pradeep Kumar and another reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 has held as under:
"10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the post concerned. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. What is honourable acquittal, was considered by this Court in Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] , in which this Court held as under:
"24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961 6 WP-1248-2024 full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."
11. .......
12. .......
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 [Commr. of Police v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910] and Parvez Khan [State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 544] 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 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 reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character."
10. A three judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 has laid down certain guidelines and para 35.8 of the said judgment is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case which reads as under:
"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."
From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that if a declaration truthfully is made by a candidate, then also right to consider his antecedents is with the employer. The requirement of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force is required to be seen.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2023 Supreme (SC) 1191 had an occasion to deal with the effect of acquittal in criminal proceeding and has held as under:
"23. With this above background, if we examine the criminal proceedings the following factual position emerges. The very same witnesses, who were examined in the departmental enquiry were examined in the criminal trial. Jagdish Chandra, Bhawani Singh, Shravan Lal, Raj Singh and Karan Sharma were examined as PW2, PW3, PW6, PW9 and PW13 respectively at the criminal trial. Apart from them, eight other witnesses were also examined. The gravamen of the charge in the criminal case was that the appellant had submitted an application for recruitment along with his Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961 7 WP-1248-2024 marksheet and he, by making alteration in his date of birth to reflect the same as 24.04.1972 in place of 21.04.1974, and obtained recruitment to the post of Constable. Though the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 420 of IPC, the Appellate Court recorded the following crucial findings while acquitting the appellant:
"....Mainly the present case was based on the documents to this effect whether the date of birth of accused is 21.04.1972 or 21.04.1974. Exh. P-3 is original Marksheet, in which, the date of birth of accused has been shown as 21.04.1972 and same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. Whatever the documents have been produced before the Court regarding the date of birth of 21.04.1974 are either the letters of Principal or are Duplicate T.C. or Marksheets. Neither the prosecution has produced any such original documents in the Subordinate Court to this effect that when the admission form of accused was filled, what date of birth was mentioned by the accused in it, what was the date of birth in Roll Register of School, what date of birth was mentioned by accused in the Examination Form of Secondary, and nor after bringing the original records from the concerned witnesses, same were got proved in the evidence. In these circumstances, this fact becomes doubtful that date of birth of accused was 21.04.1974, and accused is entitled to receive it's benefit. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction made by the Ld. Subordinate Court merely on the basis of oral evidences and letters or duplicate documents, is not just and proper. It is justifiable to acquit the accused. Resultantly, on the basis of aforesaid consideration, the present appeal filed by the Appellant/Accused is liable to be allowed."
12. If the aforesaid proposition of law is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then it is seen that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the criminal charge. The acquittal is on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove any charge against him, meaning thereby, the benefit of doubt has not been extended to the petitioner. It is the prosecution who has failed to prove their case as prosecution witnesses themselves have turned hostile. Therefore, the argument advance before this Court that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. The authorities are required to consider the aspects that what was the allegations made against the petitioner in the criminal case; what was the role assigned to him; what act he had committed in furtherance to the offence registered against him; what was the evidence placed on record against the present petitioner/accused; and whether the benefit of doubt has been extended or he has been acquitted owing to the fact that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961 8 WP-1248-2024 the prosecution witnesses failed to prove the charges as they have been turned hostile etc. These vital aspects of the matter are required to be considered by the authorities. In the present case, the authorities, only on the basis of criminal case registered against him, which was disclosed by him in column 12 in his attestation form and he has also disclosed the fact that he has been acquitted vide judgment of acquittal dated 04.01.2021, have declared him ineligible for police service. The authorities were under obligations to consider all aspects of the matter including the allegations made against the petitioner, role assigned to him, act committed by him, as well as reasons assigned by the trial court granting acquittal to him. As the impugned order rejecting candidature of the petitioner is silent about the aforesaid, the same calls for interference of this Court.
13. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid legal proposition of law as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order impugned dated 04.01.2024 passed by the authorities rejecting candidature of the petitioner is unsustainable. It is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration the case of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of Constable (GD). It is expected that the authorities will consider all the aspects of the matter including the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass a fresh order in the matter. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
14. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40961 9 WP-1248-2024 sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 02-09-2025 18:34:13