Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
1 WA-1303-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1303 of 2026
YOGESH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Prashant Sharma and Mr. Upendra Yadav - Advocates for appellant.
Mr. Vivek Khedkar - A.A.G., assisted by Mr. Ravindra Dixit - G.A. for
respondents/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order
dated 15-01-2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5719/2017, thereby
dismissing his writ petition against the cancellation of appellant’s claim for
appointment on compassionate ground on the post of constable in police
department.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
appellant lost his father while he was in harness. Appellant filed an application for
grant of appointment on compassionate ground. He filled up the character
verification form also, and duly disclosed the registration of three criminal cases
against him. It was the case of appellant that he has been acquitted by the trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
2 WA-1303-2026
Court in all the three cases, but by order dated 11-07-2017, his claim for
appointment on compassionate ground on the post of constable was rejected on
the ground that since appellant was also tried for offences under Sections 379 and
325 of IPC and said offences come within the meaning of moral turpitude, and as
the acquittal of appellant was not clean or honourable, therefore, he cannot be
considered for his appointment on compassionate ground on the post of police
constable. Order dated 11-07-2017 was challenged by filing W.P. No. 5719/2017
which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge after relying upon various
judgments passed by the Supreme Court governing the field of appointment on
compassionate ground, as well as consideration of the registration/acquittal of the
candidate in criminal cases.
3. Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is submitted by
counsel for appellant that it is true that out of three cases, appellant was acquitted
in two cases on the ground of compromise, but in the third case, injured/victim
did not appear, whereas other witnesses had turned hostile, and accordingly, he
was acquitted. It is submitted that since in two cases, appellant was acquitted
either on the basis of compromise or on the ground that the witnesses had turned
hostile, therefore, appellant would never claim that his acquittal in all the three
cases was an honourable acquittal, but submitted that in the light of judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi
and Anr. vs. Mehar Singh , reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 , as well as Avtar Singh
vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 , authorities were
under obligation to give a specific finding as to whether the allegations made
against the appellant would disentitle him for his recruitment to the post of police
constable or not. However, it is submitted that by order dated 11-07-2017, his
claim for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of police constable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
3 WA-1303-2026
was rejected only on the ground that the acquittal of appellant was not honourable.
4 . Per contra , appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is
submitted that the appointing authority has considered that allegations made
against the appellant were of moral turpitude and his acquittal was not an
honourable acquittal. Accordingly, it is submitted that the employer had
considered the fitness of appellant for his recruitment in the police department and
has come to the conclusion that with his criminal background, he is not fit for
appointment on compassionate ground on the post of police constable.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
vs. Bhupendra Yadav, reported in (2024) 18 SCC 628 , has held as under:
“15. In this context, we may usefully extract the following observations
made in Avtar Singh : (SCC pp. 504-505 & 507-508, paras 29, 36 & 38)
“29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out
fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be
of good moral character on due verification of antecedents,
merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which
was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he
may be deprived of employment? There may be case of
involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee
has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit
of doubt. There may be situation when person has been
convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case
is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed,
whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal
case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated
there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in
conviction/acquittal, as the case may be. The situation may
arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where
disclosure has been made truthfully of required information,
then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for
appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the
process of verification of information, certain information
comes to notice then also employer is required to take a
decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent
as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at
the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of
a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render
him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
4 WA-1303-2026
disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds
of cases?
***
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the
nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria
for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts
which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression
on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned
considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be
exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
***
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service must be true and
there should be no suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the
employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case,
if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal
had already been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such fact later comes to
knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses
appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty
offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information
by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is
not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
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.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
5 WA-1303-2026
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character
verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of
trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case,
in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision
of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to
multiple pending cases such false information by itself will
assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate
order cancelling candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases
were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the
candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have
adverse impact and the appointing authority would take
decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding
departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order
of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of
suppression or submitting false information in verification
form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only
such information which was required to be specifically
mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but
is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can
be considered in an objective manner while addressing the
question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be
taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as
to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to
him.”
(emphasis supplied)
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.
17. In Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, where this Court was
called upon to examine the purpose of seeking information with respect to
the antecedents of a candidate, it was observed that the same were essential
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
6 WA-1303-2026
so as to ascertain the suitability for the post and the disclosures made in the
verification form relating to the character and antecedents of the candidate
can result in the following consequences: (SCC pp. 110-11, para 15)
“15. When an employee or a prospective employee declares in a
verification form, answers to the queries relating to character
and antecedents, the verification thereof can therefore lead to
any of the following consequences:
(a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the
affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal
case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by
giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the
employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if
already employed on probation, discharge him from
service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to
the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which
he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the
criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to
offences which were technical, or of a nature that
would not affect the declarant’s fitness for
employment, or where the declarant had been
honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer
may ignore the fact that the declarant had been
prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint
him or continue him in employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions
in the negative and on verification it is found that
the answers were false, the employer may refuse to
employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already
employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of
the charges or is acquitted. This is because when
there is suppression or non-disclosure of material
information bearing on his character, that itself
becomes a reason for not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form
does not contain proper or adequate queries
requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement
in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate
was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings
when he gave the declarations in the verification
roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be
found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant
information. But if the employer by other means
(say police verification or complaints, etc.) learns
about the involvement of the declarant, the
employer can have recourse to courses (a) or (b)
above.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
7 WA-1303-2026
18. In State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar where the State Government
had invited applications for filling up the post of Subedars, Platoon
Commanders and Inspectors of Police, the respondent candidate who
participated in the selection process, filed an affidavit disclosing pendency
of a criminal case against him which was subsequently compounded on a
compromise arrived at between him and the complainant under Section
320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “CrPC“). Though the
respondent was selected on clearing the written examination his
candidature was rejected. The reasons offered for declining him an
appointment were that the candidate selected is required to maintain law
and order of the State and it was considered improper to appoint a person
having a criminal record. The said decision was overturned by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court and the view taken was affirmed by the
Division Bench. When the State Government approached this Court in
appeal, citing the decisions in Mehar Singh; R.P. Kapur v. Union of India;
State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan; Pradeep Kumar; and Avtar Singh, the
following observations were made: (Abhijit Singh Pawar case, SCC pp.
742-43, paras 13 & 16)
“13. In Avtar Singh, though this Court was principally
concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong
disclosure of information, it was observed in para 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.
***
16. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on
record to suggest that the decision taken by the authorities
concerned 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 of 2013
preferred by the respondent. No costs.”
19. In Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya,
where the employer had invited applications for the post of a Technical
Helper and on qualifying for the said post, the respondent therein was
appointed as a probationer trainee, in the course of his police verification
which was a precondition for confirming him to the post, it had transpired
that he had been convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections
323 and 341IPC but was extended benefit under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 and released on good conduct. This Court observed that at the
time of submitting an application for appointment, the respondent had
already suffered a conviction by the competent court which fact was
withheld by him and he had filed a false declaration. These facts emerged
only after receiving the police verification report. After distilling the law
on appointments obtained by fraud or misrepresentation/by suppression of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
8 WA-1303-2026
material facts, this Court proceeded to quash and set aside the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and upheld the order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court, directing reinstatement of the respondent
employee and held that said decision was unsustainable in view of the fact
that the employee had not disclosed/suppressed material facts and had filed
a false declaration.
20. In the captioned case, this Court expressed a view that even where
there was a subsequent acquittal, the employee having furnished false
information/indulged in suppression of material fact of a pending criminal
case, cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. Following are the
observations made regarding the credibility of such an employee from the
perspective of the employer: (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
case, SCC p. 152, para 14)
“14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle,
from the employer’s point of view. The question is not about
whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature
and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The
question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such
an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e.
while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying
for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or
suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case.
If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer
might not have appointed him. Then the question is of trust.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an
employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false
statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or
suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be
continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied
upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue
such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or
not to continue such an employee always must be given to the
employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as
observed hereinabove in a catena of decisions such an employee
cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as
a matter of right.”
21. On applying the law expounded by this Court in a series of decisions
to the facts of the instant case, we find that the Division Bench of the High
Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant State
Government and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge
who had upheld the order passed by the competent authority, terminating
the services of the respondent on the ground that he was candid enough to
make a disclosure in his verification form stating that he had been charge-
sheeted in a criminal case wherein he was later on acquitted and there was
no other criminal case pending against him at the relevant time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
9 WA-1303-2026
22. We are, however, unable to concur with the aforesaid view. Even
though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a
criminal case which was decided by the trial court vide judgment dated 26-
10-2015, on perusing the facts of the said case as noted hereinabove and
the observations made in the judgment, quite clearly, this was not a case of
clean acquittal. It is evident from the facts narrated that after the charge-
sheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the
complainant and filed an application under Section 320CrPC, based on
which the offence under Section 341IPC was compounded. As for the
remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. Section 354-
DIPC and Section 11(D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non-
compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The respondent
was acquitted by the trial court primarily on account of the fact that the
complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the
other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the
respondent’s plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal
case, is found to be devoid of merits.”
In the present case, undisputedly father of the appellant was in police
department.
7. So far as the acquittal of appellant in Criminal Case No. 679/2009
registered for offences under Sections 504 and 324 of IPC is concerned, it is clear
from the judgment dated 23-01-2015 passed by JMFC, Bhind in aforesaid case
that the victim/complainant and witness Sarita Singh were never produced by the
prosecution in spite of multiple opportunities granted to the prosecution, whereas
Munna Singh (PW2) had turned hostile. According to the injuries sustained by
complainant/victim, it is clear that he was given multiple teeth bites by appellant.
Why the prosecution did not produce the victim is a mystery, but the fact that
father of appellant was in police department cannot be lost sight of.
8. Be that whatever it may be.
9. Appellant himself has cited the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda , reported in (2022) 1 SCC
1. In this case, the Supreme Court has dealt with the aspect “honourable acquittal”
and has held as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
10 WA-1303-2026
” 12. In view of the above, if the acquittal is directed by the court on
consideration of facts and material evidence on record with the finding of
false implication or the finding that the guilt had not been proved,
accepting the explanation of accused as just, it be treated as honourable
acquittal. In other words, if prosecution could not prove the guilt for other
reasons and not “honourably” acquitted by the court, it be treated other
than “honourable”, and proceedings may follow.
13. The expression “honourable acquittal” has been considered in S.
Samuthiram [State v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC
(Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] after considering the judgments in
RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC
541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] and R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. Union of India,
AIR 1964 SC 787] , Raghava Rajgopalachari [State of Assam v. Raghava
Rajgopalachari, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 1 : (1972) 7 SLR 44] ; this Court
observed that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by
a criminal court and enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding
is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing guilt of the
accused is on the prosecution, until proved beyond reasonable doubt. In
case, the prosecution failed to take steps to examine crucial witnesses or the
witnesses turned hostile, such acquittal would fall within the purview of
giving benefit of doubt and the accused cannot be treated as honourably
acquitted by the criminal court. While, in a case of departmental
proceedings, the guilt may be proved on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities, it is thus observed that acquittal giving benefit of doubt
would not automatically lead to reinstatement of candidate unless the rules
provide so.
14. Recently, this Court in State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar
[State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 : (2018) 1
SCC (Cri) 504 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] , relying upon the judgment of
S. Samuthiram [State v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC
(Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] said that acquittal in a criminal case
is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates on the post concerned.
It is observed, acquittal or discharge of a person cannot always be inferred
that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedent. The said
issue has further been considered in Mehar Singh [State v. Mehar Singh,
(2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910]
holding non-examination of key witnesses leading to acquittal is not
honourable acquittal, in fact, it is by giving benefit of doubt. The Court
said that nature of acquittal is necessary for core consideration. If acquittal
is not honourable, the candidates are not suitable for government service
and are to be avoided. The relevant factors and the nature of offence, extent
of his involvement, propensity of such person to indulge in similar
activities in future, are the relevant aspects for consideration by the
Screening Committee, which is competent to decide all these issues.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
11 WA-1303-2026
It has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 14 of the abovementioned
judgment that the Supreme Court in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) has held that
the non-examination of key witnesses leading to acquittal is not honourable
acquittal, and in fact, it is by giving benefit of doubt.
Similarly, in paragraph 21, it has been 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 impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court in Methu Meda v. Union of India and the
Division Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda are not sustainable in
law, as discussed hereinabove.”
Thus, it is clear that if the witnesses have turned hostile, then it would not
automatically entitle the candidate for employment and that too in disciplined
force.
10. So far as the question of compounding is concerned, the said aspect has
been taken note of by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs.
State of M.P., reported in (2018) 2 MPLJ 419 , wherein 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 inSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1451412 WA-1303-2026
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.
The expectations from a Judicial Officer are of much higher standard.
There cannot be any compromise in respect of rectitude, honesty and
integrity of a candidate who seeks appointment as Civil Judge. The
personal conduct of a candidate to be appointed as Judicial Officer has to
be free from any taint. The standard of conduct in the case of Judicial
Officer is higher than that expected of an ordinary citizen and also higher
than that expected of a professional in law as well. The same must be in
tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity.”
This Court in the case of Anil Kumar Balmik vs. State of M.P. and others
by order dated 02.09.2020 passed in W.P. No.23104/2019(s) has held has under:-
“Compounding of offence” is nothing but an undertaking by the victim to
give up the prosecution of the offender.”
This Court in the case of Bhagwat Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others
decided on 08/12/2021 in Writ Petition No.26996/2021 has held as under:-
“8. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he had not suppressed the
factum of registration of criminal case and acquittal of the petitioner on the
basis of compromise, but it appears that the screening committee after
considering the case, found that the petitioner is not fit for police service.
9. By the impugned order, the candidature of the petitioner has been once
again rejected on the ground that since the petitioner has been acquitted on
the basis of compromise, therefore, it cannot be said to be an honourable
acquittal. As already held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Ashutosh Pawar (supra), an acquittal on the basis of compromise cannot be
treated that the candidate possesses good character, which may make him
eligible, as the criminal proceedings are with a view to find culpability of
commission of offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view
of his suitability to the post. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of
Pradeep Kumar (supra) has held that entering into the police service
requires good character, integrity and clean antecedents.
10. Undisputely, it is for the employer to consider the suitability of a
candidate. Eligibility and suitability are to different aspects and this Court
cannot substitute its finding by holding that the candidate should be held to
be suitable. This Court in the case of Anil Kumar Balmik (supra) has held
as under:
“Suitability” cannot be confused with “Eligibility”. A
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madhur Vs.Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1451413 WA-1303-2026
State of M.P. by order dated 17-4-2018 passed in W.P.
21231 of 2017 has held as under:
The “suitability” cannot be confused with
eligibility”. In the ‘Major Law Laxicon’ by P.
Ramanatha Iyer about the word following view is
expressed-” the word ‘suitable’ does not require a
definition because any man of experience would
know who is suitable. However, each case has to be
viewed in the context in which the word
“suitability” or “suitable” is used, the object of the
enactment and the purpose sought to be achieved.”
A constitution Bench of Supreme Court in State of J
& K vs. Trilokinath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 and
another Bench in State of Orissa vs. N.N. Swami
(1977) 2 SCC 508 opined that eligibility must not be
confused with the suitability of the candidate for
appointment. These judgments were considered by
Calcutta High Court in 2013 SCC Online 22909 (All
b. Ed. Degree Holders Welfare Association vs. State
of West Bengal ). In (2009) 8 SCC 273 (Mahesh
Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India) it was again held
that suitability of a recommendee and the
consultation are not subject to judicial review but
the issue of lack of eligibility or an effective
consultation can be scrutinized.. The Supreme Court
in (2014) 11 SCC 547 (High Court of Madras vs. R.
Gandhi) while dealing with appointment on a
constitutional post opined that ‘eligibility’ is an
objective factor. When ‘eligibility’ is put in
question, it could fall within the scope of judicial
review. The aspect of ‘suitability’ stands excluded
from the purview of judicial review. At the cost of
repetition, the Apex Court opined that ‘eligibility’ is
a matter of fact whereas ‘suitability’ is a matter of
opinion. In this view of the matter, when Competent
Authority has examined the suitability in the teeth of
relevant enabling provision i.e. Rule 6 (3) of Rules
of 1961, interference is totally unwarranted.
While exercising the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot act as an Appellate Authority and
cannot substitute its own findings.
The Supreme Court in the case of UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya ,
reported in (2018) 15 SCC 796 has held as under :
18……..It is the settled legal position that the courts
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1451414 WA-1303-2026
have to show deference and consideration to the
recommendations of an Expert Committee
consisting of members with expertise in the field, if
malice or arbitrariness in the Committee’s decision
is not forthcoming. The doctrine of fairness, evolved
in administrative law, was not supposed to convert
tribunals and courts into appellate authorities over
the decision of experts. The constraints–
selfimposed, undoubtedly–of writ jurisdiction still
remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and
uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become
rudderless.””
Thus, it is clear that if a witness has agreed to compromise the matter, then
that by itself would not mean that the accused did not commit an offence, but at
the most, it can be said that the complainant had decided not to prosecute the
accused any further.
11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the
acquittal of appellant was not honourable and that fact has also not been
challenged by appellant.
12. The authorities have held that the offences under Sections 325 and 379
of IPC are offences involving moral turpitude. In order to dislodge that finding, it
was obligatory on the part of appellant to file copy of the charge-sheet to show
what are the allegations and how the findings recorded by the employer are
erroneous, but admittedly, appellant did not file the charge sheet either before the
Writ Court or before this Court. In fact, the charge-sheet of all the three cases have
not been placed on record.
13. Under these circumstances, when appellant himself was child of a
police personnel, but still three criminal cases were registered against him, then
the subjective satisfaction by the employer that he is not fit for recruitment in
police department, which is a disciplined force, cannot be said to be erroneous.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14514
15 WA-1303-2026
14. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge did not commit any mistake by
dismissing the writ petition.
15. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-05-2026
06:48:47 PM
