Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akash Chouhan vs Honble High Court Of M.P on 5 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
1 WP-9109-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9109 of 2017
AKASH CHOUHAN
Versus
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF M.P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mahabir Prasad Sharma, with Shri Nilesh Kotecha, Advocates for
petitioner.
Shri Siddharth Seth, Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed against order dated 18.01.2017 passed in Case No. Endorsement
No.E/587/three-18-11- 2015 Gwalior passed by the respondents.
(2) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III by the respondents on
04.10.2010 and joined his duties on 14.10.2010. During the process of
appointment, the petitioner’s character verification was conducted through
the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. At that time, the petitioner disclosed
that certain matrimonial cases were pending between him and his wife Smt.
Shivani Rajak, including Crime No. 792/2009, and also submitted an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
2 WP-9109-2017
affidavit dated 22.03.2011 regarding the pendency of such cases.
subsequently, the disputes between the petitioner and his wife were amicably
settled and all the cases pending between them were disposed of on the basis
of compromise by the competent courts. After joining service, the
petitioner’s wife Smt. Shivani Rajak made several complaints against the
petitioner to the authorities, alleging concealment of information regarding
pending cases. On the basis of the said complaints, the petitioner was called
upon to submit explanations and enquiries were conducted by the authorities.
In the earlier enquiry conducted by the First Additional District Judge,
Gwalior, the petitioner was exonerated, holding that the petitioner had
already disclosed the relevant facts at the time of joining. Despite the earlier
enquiry report, the petitioner’s wife again submitted complaints to the
authorities in the year 2012 and 2014, alleging that the petitioner had
obtained employment by furnishing incorrect information. There after a
departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet
was issued alleging that the petitioner had furnished incorrect information
regarding the pendency of criminal cases at the time of submitting the
application form. After completion of the departmental enquiry, the District
and Sessions Judge, Gwalior, vide order dated 08.06.2015, imposed the
punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner in Departmental
Enquiry No. 08/2014. Review application against the said order before the
District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior, which was rejected on 25.06.2015.
Departmental appeal, which was also rejected by the respondent authority
vide order dated 18.01.2017. The petitioner filed the present petition on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
3 WP-9109-2017
following grounds.
(3) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner had served the department for about five years with a good service
record, and his Confidential Reports were satisfactory. The impugned orders
of removal from service and rejection of appeal are arbitrary,
disproportionate, and passed without proper application of mind and prays
for quashment of the impugned orders and reinstatement in service with
consequential benefits.
(4) The petitioner contended that the enquiry report dated
01.11.2014 clearly recorded that he was not found guilty of the charges
mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 26.04.2014. It was also submitted that
the preliminary enquiry conducted earlier had already exonerated the
petitioner of allegations regarding suppression of facts while seeking
appointment.
(5) The petitioner further argued that the order directing a detailed
departmental enquiry dated 24.05.2014 was issued without serving a prior
show cause notice, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It
was also submitted that the punishment order dated 08.06.2015 was not
based on the enquiry report but on the findings of the Administrative
Committee, and the departmental appeal dismissed on 18.01.2017 was not a
speaking order.
(6) Reliance was placed on the decision in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union
of India (AIR 1996 SC 484), wherein it was held that the High Court or
Tribunal may interfere where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
4 WP-9109-2017
authority shocks the conscience of the Court.
(7) The petitioner also referred to a similar case i.e. Order No.
B/1014/Teen-18-91/08 (Gwalior), Jabalpur, dated 25.02.2010, passed by the
authorities of Respondents No. 1 and 2 directing the reinstatement of Shri
Shashi Shekhar Sharma in service without back wages after setting aside the
order of dismissal passed against him on the ground of suppression of
criminal cases. The petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid
order dated 25.02.2010 passed by Respondents No. 1 and 2.
(8) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on order
passed by Rajasthan High Court in the case of Varun Kumar Karwasra Vs.
the Union of India and others (D.B. Civil Petition No. 7101 of 2015 order
dated 03.03.2016) to say that if a minor criminal case ends in compromise
before trial and the candidate reasonably believes he was never “prosecuted,”
non-disclosure in the attestation form does not amount to suppression of
material information, and termination of service on that basis is arbitrary.
(9) Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of
India and others reported as 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441 to submit that
a candidate cannot be automatically denied public employment solely due to
past involvement in a criminal case, especially when the offence is minor or
trivial, and the person has been acquitted or the case ended in
compromise. Authorities must conduct a case-by-case evaluation instead of
adopting a blanket disqualification policy.
(10) Counsel for respondents placed reliance on the order passed in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
5 WP-9109-2017
Satyendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and two others (Neutral Citation No.
2024:AHC:4359), particularly referring to paragraph 16 thereof wherein the
respondents relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 7 SCC
5 3 6 a n d State of M.P. and others vs. Bhupendra Yadav, AIR 2023 SC
4553 argued that in the said judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
categorically held that suppression or concealment of facts relating to the
pendency of criminal cases by a candidate is, by itself, sufficient ground for
cancellation of his candidature or termination of his services. It was further
submitted that a person who, at the time of filling up the application form,
fails to disclose pending criminal cases cannot be permitted to work on a
sensitive post, as such non-disclosure raises serious doubts about his
character. Therefore, the employer has every right to deny appointment to
such a candidate.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(11) Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant
Grade-III, wherein he declared that he was unmarried and that no criminal
case was pending before any court or registered at any police station against
him. However, after the issuance of the appointment order, he submitted a
verification form along with an affidavit in which, for the first time, he
disclosed that he was married and that both criminal and civil cases were
pending before the court.
(12) The petitioner’s wife had lodged a criminal case against him at
Police Station Jankganj under Sections 498A, 406, 34, and 323 of the IPC,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
6 WP-9109-2017
along with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Several complaints
were also made by his wife against him. During the pendency of the
complaint, an amicable settlement took place between the husband and wife.
On the basis of the settlement, the criminal proceedings were quashed by the
High Court, and the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges.
(13) The petitioner’s wife made a complaint against him on
22.11.2012, alleging that he had secured the job by concealing material facts
regarding his marital status and by not disclosing the pending criminal cases.
Another complaint was submitted to the Administrative Judge of the High
Court, Gwalior Bench, on 19.02.2014, and yet another complaint was made
to the District Judge on 12.03.2014.
(14) A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the First Additional
District Judge, Gwalior, who found that the application for appointment had
been received on 08.02.2010 and that after joining the service the petitioner
had submitted an affidavit along with a letter disclosing all the relevant facts.
Therefore, it was concluded that no case of non-disclosure of material facts
was made out.
(15) Subsequently, a second preliminary inquiry was conducted by
the Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior, and on the basis of the report
submitted by the Special Judge, a departmental inquiry was initiated. The
10th District Judge, Gwalior, observed that when the alleged incorrect
disclosure was made in the application form, the delinquent employee was
not a government servant; therefore, the Civil Services Conduct Rules were
not applicable. However, the District Judge, Gwalior, did not accept the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
7 WP-9109-2017
finding and, after providing an opportunity of hearing, imposed the
punishment of termination of service upon the petitioner.
(16) In Kanailal Bera v. Union of India, (2007) 14 SCC 517 , the
Supreme Court held that once disciplinary proceedings are initiated, they
must be brought to their logical conclusion, meaning thereby that a finding
must be recorded as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty of the charges
levelled against him or not. In a given situation, further evidence may be
directed to be adduced, but that does not mean that, despite holding the
delinquent officer partially guilty of the charges, another inquiry may be
initiated on the very same charges which could not be proved in the first
inquiry. The aforesaid principle is not applicable to the present case, as three
preliminary enquiries were conducted to ascertain whether any grounds
existed for initiating a departmental inquiry. The said principle applies only
in cases where the departmental inquiry has been concluded in accordance
with the Civil Services Conduct Rules.
(17) In Union of India and Others v. Hariom, 2007 (1) JLJ 12 , it was
held that if an employee was not convicted of any offence on the date of
filling the verification roll, the mere pendency of a criminal case was not
required to be disclosed, particularly when the employee was subsequently
acquitted.
(18) Further, in D.D. Rampure (Devi Dayal Rampure) v. State of
M.P. & Others, 2014 (1) MPJR 155, it was held that once the disciplinary
authority passes an order of punishment or exoneration on the basis of the
enquiry officer’s report, it becomes functus officio, and in the absence of any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
8 WP-9109-2017
enabling provision, it cannot recall, review, or modify its own order or direct
further inquiry on the same charges from which the employee has already
been exonerated.
(19) The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on
the cases of Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore Vs. J.
Raghunees reported as (2023) 16 SCC 647, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav reported as (2003) 3 SCC 437, Daya
Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of India and others reported as (2010)14 SCC
103, Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported as (2013)
9 SCC 363, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyt Prasaran Nigam Limited and another Vs.
Anil Kanwariya reported as (2021) 10 SCC 136, State of M.P. and others Vs.
Abhijit Singh Pawar reported as (2018) 18 SCC 733, Avtar Singh Vs. Union
of India and others reported as (2016) 8 SCC 471, Satyendra Singh (Supra),
Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and others reported as (2023) 7
SCC 536, State of M.P. and others Vs. Bhupendra Yadav (2024) 18 SCC 628
are distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(20) It is not disputed that on the date of filing the application for
appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III, the petitioner was not a
government servant. Therefore, a crucial issue arises as to whether the Civil
Services Conduct Rules are applicable to a person who was not in
government service at the time when the alleged misconduct was committed.
(21) Admittedly, when the alleged concealment of material facts
occurred in the application form, the petitioner was not in service. Such
concealment, if any, could have resulted in the cancellation of his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
9 WP-9109-2017
candidature, or the appointing authority could have condoned it upon
disclosure of the relevant facts. After his appointment, the petitioner fairly
disclosed all the relevant facts, and the District Judge, after conducting an
inquiry, found that there was no concealment of material facts.
(22) This clearly implies that the appointing authority condoned the
alleged suppression of facts and did not cancel the petitioner’s candidature
for the said post. In Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 1987 MPLJ 528, it was held that once the master has
condoned the misconduct of a servant, punishment cannot thereafter be
imposed for the same misconduct. A master cannot impose any punishment
on a servant for misconduct which has already been condoned.
(23) It is essential to reproduce Rule 1(3),2(b) and 22A of the the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965:
“(3) Save as otherwise provided in these rules they shall apply to
all persons appointed in civil services and posts in connection with
the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh:
2(b) “Government servant” means any person appointed to any
civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of
Madhya Pradesh.
[22A. General concept of misconduct.- Without prejudice to the
generality of the concept of misconduct, any act or omission in
breach of direction or prohibition enacted in these rules shall
amount misconduct punishable under the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.]”
(24) From a conjoint reading of Rule 1(3) and Rule 2(b) of the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, it is evident that the
said rules apply to persons who are appointed to a civil service or post in
connection with the affairs of the State and thereby acquire the status of a
Government servant. Further, Rule 22A clarifies that any act or omission in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
10 WP-9109-2017
violation of the directions or prohibitions contained in the Conduct Rules
would constitute misconduct, which is punishable under the M.P. Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Thus, only a
person who falls within the definition of a Government servant and is
governed by the Conduct Rules can be proceeded against for misconduct
under the said disciplinary framework. In such circumstances, the
departmental inquiry for any misconduct prior to the appointment of
government servant is bad in law; hence, the conviction of the petitioner
cannot be sustained.
(25) The petitioner is not a person with a criminal background. Due
to family differences, his wife gave a colour of criminal acts against him to
fulfil her own interest. After settlement of the dispute, she is living her life
peacefully. The criminal case registered against the petitioner has been
quashed by the High Court; therefore, no criminal incident survives against
him.
(26) A perusal of the appointment order reveals that it specifically
stipulates that in the event any pending case against the employee is decided,
he shall immediately inform the office and furnish a copy of the judgment.
The condition, therefore, only casts an obligation upon the employee to
intimate the department regarding the final outcome of the pending case and
to submit the relevant judgment forthwith.
(27) The said stipulation does not provide that the mere pendency of a
case would constitute a disqualification for appointment to the post of
Assistant Grade-III. Rather, the language of the condition clearly indicates
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18383
11 WP-9109-2017
that the employee was permitted to hold the post notwithstanding the
pendency of the case, subject to the requirement of informing the department
about the decision of the case as and when it is finally adjudicated. Thus, the
condition contained in the appointment order implies that there was no bar to
the appointment of the employee to the post of Assistant Grade-III merely on
account of the pendency of the case.
(28) Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated
08.06.2014 (Annexure P/24), order dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure P/26) as
well as order dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P/29) are quashed. The
termination of the petitioner is set aside, and the respondent authorities are
directed to reinstate him on the post of Assistant Grade-III. In the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of “no work, no pay” shall
apply. Since the petitioner did not discharge duties during the relevant
period, he shall not be entitled to back wages for that period; however, he
shall be entitled to continuity of service for all other consequential benefits
in accordance with law.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
MSP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
18:26:02