Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3313
1 WP No. 5385 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5385 of 2017
NEERAJ SIKARWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-
“i) A direction may kindly be given to the respondents to decide
the representation of the petitioner in the light of allotment unit
issued by respondent no. 2;
ii) Further direction may kindly be given to the respondent no. 2
to issue the order to subordinate officer for receiving joining of the
petitioner;
iii) Further direction may kindly be given to the respondents to
pay the salary to the petitioner from the when his juniors were
joined and give seniority and all other consequential benefits; and
iv) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3313
2 WP No. 5385 of 2017
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner appeared in
recruitment test 2016 and was selected on the post of Driver. Thereafter, when
petitioner submitted his joining at the allotted place i.e. Superintendent of Police
Dewas, then SP refused to give joining on the basis that in the police verification
it was found that Sessions Trial No.185/2014 was pending before learned II
Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena (M.P.). It is further submitted
that in the said criminal case, learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District
Morena (M.P.) passed the judgment of acquittal dated on 21-4-2016 and as
petitioner has already been acquitted in the said case no case is pending against
him and thus petitioner is entitled to join on the post of Driver.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that petitioner
was required to fill up the form by mentioning his particulars in the form in
Column No. 12. Petitioner has specifically mentioned that no criminal case has
been registered against him nor is pending. However, the fact remains that a
criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Crime No.128/2013 at P.S.
Baghchini, District Morena u/s 147, 148, 149, 307 and 323 IPC. Learned counsel
for respondent/State submits that while filling up the verification form petitioner
has given wrong information and he has not mentioned the aforesaid criminal
case. Learned counsel for respondent/State further submits that petitioner has
been acquitted u/s 307 of IPC on the basis of the insufficiency of evidence and
u/s 148 and 323 IPC, petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of the
compromise arrived at between the parties. It is submitted that considering the
aforesaid fact, screening committee meeting was held on 25.4.2017 wherein
petitioner was not found to be fit for grant of appointment in disciplined police
force as the offences involved were of moral turpitude and as petitioner had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3313
3 WP No. 5385 of 2017
suppressed aforesaid criminal case in attestation form. Learned counsel further
submits that screening committee has already considered the case of petitioner on
08.05.2017 and the result thereof has been informed to petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs.
Methu Meda reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1 in paragraph 21 has 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 [Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP
10701] , [Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 3897 of
2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP)] impugned. Therefore, the
impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court in Methu Meda v. Union of India [Methu Meda v. Union of
India, Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP)]
and the Division Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda [Union of
India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10701] are not
sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove. “
6. The issue of considering the candidature of a candidate for appointment in
view of his involvement in the criminal case has been considered time and again
by the Apex Court as also by this Court. Similar issue was considered by the
Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. Vs.
Mehar Singh, 2013 (7) SCC 685. It was also a case wherein the incumbent was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3313
4 WP No. 5385 of 2017
acquitted based upon compromise, the Court held that it is still open to the
Screening Committee to examine the suitability of the candidate and take a
decision. The Court held in paragraphs 22, 23, 33, 34, 35 as under :
“22. Clause (3) of the comprehensive policy delineated in the
Standing Order is material for the present case. It refers to the
Screening Committee comprising high police officers. After a
candidate, who has disclosed his involvement, is acquitted or
discharged, the Committee has to assess his/her suitability for
appointment. Clause (6) states that those against whom serious
offences or offences involving moral turpitude are registered and who
are later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or because the
witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused
person shall not generally be considered suitable for government
service. However, all such cases will be considered by the Screening
Committee manned by senior officers. In our opinion, the word
“generally” indicates the nature of discretion. As a matter of rule,
such candidates have to be avoided. Exceptions will be few and far
between and obviously must be substantiated with acceptable
reasons.
23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the
Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in
grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are
acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on
technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will
be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds
that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the
prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile.
It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will
be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is
likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and
vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening
Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such
person’s involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a
cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than
maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed by the Delhi Police
does not merit any interference from this Court as its object appearsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33135 WP No. 5385 of 2017
to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the
police force.
*** *** ***
33. So far as respondent Mehar Singh is concerned, his case appears
to have been compromised. It was urged that acquittal recorded
pursuant to a compromise should not be treated as a disqualification
because that will frustrate the purpose of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987. We see no merit in this submission.
Compromises or settlements have to be encouraged to bring about
peaceful and amiable atmosphere in the society by according a
quietus to disputes. They have to be encouraged also to reduce arrears
of cases and save the litigants from the agony of pending litigation.
But these considerations cannot be brought in here. In order to
maintain integrity and high standard of police force, the Screening
Committee may decline to take cognizance of a compromise, if it
appears to it to be dubious. The Screening Committee cannot be
faulted for that.
34. The respondents are trying to draw mileage from the fact that in
their application and/or attestation form they have disclosed their
involvement in a criminal case. We do not see how this fact improves
their case. Disclosure of these facts in the application/attestation form
is an essential requirement. An aspirant is expected to state these facts
honestly. Honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of the police
force. The respondents should not, therefore, expect to score any
brownie points because of this disclosure. Besides, this has no
relevance to the point in issue. It bears repetition to state that while
deciding whether a person against whom a criminal case was
registered and who was later on acquitted or discharged should be
appointed to a post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature
of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal
was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt
because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw
in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in
similar activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be
taken by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the
Delhi Police. If the Screening Committee’s decision is not mala fide
or actuated by extraneous considerations, then, it cannot be
questioned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3313
6 WP No. 5385 of 2017
35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great
responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the
society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be
worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police
force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable
character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not
fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the
criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be
examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the
case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes
poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing
Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these
matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening
Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent
times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police
personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in
public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the
police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not
like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the
Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that
persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police
force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to
the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates
with an even hand.”
7. Again in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2
SCC 591, the Apex Court reiterated the same legal proposition holding as under :
“13. From the above observations of this Court, it is clear that a
candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of
confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have
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 completely exonerated.
Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not
to enter the police force. No doubt the Screening Committee has not
been constituted in the case considered by this Court, as rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, in the presentSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33137 WP No. 5385 of 2017
case, the Superintendent of Police has gone into the matter. The
Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority. There is no
allegation of mala fides against the person taking the said decision
nor the decision is shown to be perverse or irrational. There is no
material to show that the appellant was falsely implicated. Basis of
impugned judgment [Parvez Khan v. State of M.P., Writ Appeal No.
262 of 2010, decided on 20-3-2012 (MP)] is acquittal for want of
evidence or discharge based on compounding.”
8. The Apex Court reiterated the same legal proposition in the case of Union
Territory, Chandigarh Administration & others Vs. Pradeep Kumar &
another, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 and held in para – 13 as under :
“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 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.”
9. In view of the aforesaid legal pronouncement of law by the Apex Court, it
is now settled that the jurisdiction to judge the suitability of a candidate for
appointment lies with the Screening Committee only. The Apex Court, in para 22
of Mehar Singh case, has held that as a rule such candidates should be avoided. It
is further held in para 33 that the decision of the Screening Committee can be
interfered with only when the same is mala fide or is actuated with some
extraneous consideration. Further, in para 35, the Apex Court held that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3313
8 WP No. 5385 of 2017
decision of Screening Committee has to be accepted unless it is mala fide.
Looking to the facts of present case, it is found that the petitioner has not alleged
mala fide against the Screening Committee. Thus, the discretion exercised by the
Screening Committee needs to be accepted.
10. As seen from above, a candidate should be held as suitable first if he is
tried for trivial offence(s) and secondly he is acquitted. In the instant case,
petitioner has been acquitted u/s 307 of IPC on the basis of the insufficiency of
evidence and u/s 148 and 323 IPC, petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of
the compromise arrived at between the parties, however, his acquittal was not
honourable. The term ‘acquitted’ used in aforesaid clause has to mean acquitted
on merits otherwise undue benefit would be acquired by candidates who may be
involved in criminal activities. Somewhat similar clause was under consideration
before Apex Court in the case of Anil Bhardwaj Vs. The Hon’ble High Court
of M.P. and Ors., [2020] 9 S.C.R. 442. The Apex Court while dealing with
similar provision held that the acquittal should be on merits. Para 27 being
relevant is quoted hereunder :
“27. Clause (viii) on which the reliance is placed contemplates that
the candidate who has been acquitted on merit by the Court will be
eligible for the Government service. The aforesaid contemplation
relates to at the time of character verification. Thus, at the time of
character verification, if a candidate is found to be acquitted on
merits by the Court, the candidate shall be treated to be eligible for
Government Service. The above clause (viii) as quoted above cannot
come to the rescue of the appellant who at the time of character
verification or at the time of consideration of the case of the appellant
by the committee on 18.07.2018 had not been acquitted. Had the
appellant in column 12 had mentioned about the acquittal or at the
time of character verification it was found that the candidate has been
acquitted on merit by the Court, Clause 6(viii) would have been
attracted but in the present case the said clause is not attracted sinceSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33139 WP No. 5385 of 2017
at the time of character verification the appellant had not been
acquitted and he was acquitted after more than a year from rejection
of his candidature.”
11. The reliance placed upon by the petitioner’s counsel on the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.7 of 2020 in the case of Rohit
Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. is also misplaced inasmuch as
the facts of that case were entirely different. In the said case, only offence was
registered against the petitioner but there was no final verdict by the Court. In
that context, the Division Bench laid down certain criteria to be looked into by
the competent authority. However, in the present case, criminal case has already
been closed.
12. Recently, the Apex Court has passed the order in the case of The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Bhupendra Yadav, (2023) SCC Online SC
1181 wherein in similar circumstances, the Court has approved the decision of
the Screening Committee in cancelling the candidature of the candidate who was
acquitted in criminal case on the basis of compromise. In the said case also, the
candidature was cancelled based upon the compromise between the parties. The
Apex Court held as under:
“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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3313
10 WP No. 5385 of 2017
13. The Full Bench of this Court has also considered the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in such
matters in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of M.P. and another,
reported in 2018(2) MPLJ 419, wherein in para 32 & 40, 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 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.
xxx xxx xxx
40. In view of the law laid down in above said judgments, there is no
doubt that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, this Court only examines the decision-
making process and does not substitute itself as a Court of appeal
over the reasons recorded by the State Government. We find that the
decision of the State Government holding that the petitioner is notSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:331311 WP No. 5385 of 2017
suitable, is just, fair and reasonable keeping in view the nature of the
post and the duties to be discharged.”
14. In view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Apex Court as also by
this Court, it is loud and clear that the interference in such matters can be
made only on the ground of mala fide. Further, this Court can examine only the
decision making process and not the merits of the case. The jurisdiction to
consider the merits of the case lies within the exclusive domain of the
Screening Committee. Further, as a rule, decision of Screening Committee
needs to be accepted unless it is shown to be mala fide or based on some
extraneous consideration.
15. In view of aforesaid discussion, if the facts of this case are considered in
the light of the judicial pronouncement in various judgments, it is clear that a
criminal offence was registered against the petitioner wherein specific allegations
against the petitioner in the FIR were made. Under these circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the Screening Committee was competent
to consider the petitioner’s candidature vis-a-vis his involvement and role in
criminal incident. In absence of any mala fide and/or involvement of any
extraneous consideration, the decision of Screening Committee does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
16. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2026
3:52:17 PM