Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Mourya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
1 WP-20383-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 23 rd OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 20383 of 2017
ARUN KUMAR MOURYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Ahirwar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for the respondents / State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition praying for the following reliefs :-
“7.1 That, the impugned order Annexure P/1 deserves to be set
aside and further the respondents may kindly be directed to
appoint the petitioner on the post of police constable. In the
interest of justice.
7.2 That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the cases in favour of the petitioners including
the costs throughout may also be granted.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 has
issued advertisement for recruitment of Police Constable. The petitioner applied
under the said advertisement and he was declared successful as his name has been
reflected in the select list. Petitioner has also qualified physical fitness test. The
respondents have verified the police verification report of the petitioner then they
came to know that a matrimonial case has been registered against the petitioner
and petitioner has concealed this fact and made false statement in his application
and not mentioned about the aforesaid criminal case. At the time of the
appointment, the fact of the criminal case came to the knowledge of the
respondents then respondents have refused to give appointment to the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
2 WP-20383-2017
and vide order dated 29.07.2017 declared the petitioner unfit to become a police
personnel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed
representation before the respondents/competent authority and mentioned this fact
that there is no involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case and
petitioner has already been acquitted by the trial court and matter related to
domestic dispute and he was falsely implicated in the criminal case and in the said
crime he was not sent to jail.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents / State submits that
offence at crime No. 945/2010 has been registered against the petitioner at police
station Thatipur, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under sections 498-
A, 323/34, 506-B of IPC and thereafter charge sheet was also filed by the
concerning Investigating Officer and subsquent to the same, the concerning
competent court has framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under sections 498-A, 323/34, 506-B of IPC and thereafter the
concerning trial Court acquitted the petitioner giving him benefit of doubt and
passed the acquittal judgment dated 06/08/2014 and the petitioner has filed his
candidature for the post of Constable and after his selection on the post of
Constable the respondent authority has made the verification proceedings,
wherein, the petitioner has submitted his verification form as required by the law
on 06/05/2017, wherein, the petitioner did not disclose his criminal case. Looking
to the said act of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the
respondents/competent authority.
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 in paragraph 21 has held as
under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
3 WP-20383-2017
“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 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.”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 and Anr. Vs. Mehar Singh, 2013 (7) SCC 685 . It was
also a case wherein the incumbent was 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”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
4 WP-20383-2017
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
appears 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
5 WP-20383-2017
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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
6 WP-20383-2017
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.”
6 . 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 present 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.”
7 . 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 held in para – 13 as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
7 WP-20383-2017
“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.”
8 . 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, 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
malafide or is actuated with some extraneous consideration. Further, in para
35, the Apex Court held that the decision of Screening Committee has to be
accepted unless it is malafide. Looking to the facts of present case, it is found
that the petitioner has not alleged malafide against the Screening Committee.
Thus, the discretion exercised by the Screening Committee needs to be
accepted.
9 . As seen from above, a candidate should be held as suitable firstly if
he is tried for trivial offence(s) and secondly he is acquitted. No doubt
petitioner was tried for compoundable offences, but his acquittal was not
honourable. The term ‘acquitted’ used in aforesaid clause has to mean
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
8 WP-20383-2017
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) SCR 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 since 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.”
10. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
9 WP-20383-2017
case, criminal case has already been closed.
11. Recently, the Apex Court has passed the order in the case of State of
M.P. Vs. 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.”
12. 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. State of M.P., 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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1314310 WP-20383-2017
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 not suitable, is just,
fair and reasonable keeping in view the nature of the post and
the duties to be discharged.”
13. 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 malafides. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13143
11 WP-20383-2017
Committee needs to be accepted unless it is shown to be malafide or based on
some extraneous consideration.
14. 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 malafide
and/or involvement of any extraneous consideration, the decision of
Screening Committee does not warrant interference by this Court. The
judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner passed by the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022 (Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. ) is not
applicable in the present case. The facts of that case mentioned in para 17 is
different from the present case.
15. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Durgekar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM