Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
1 WP-7812-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7812 of 2021
SANJAY KUMAR PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brindavan Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
(Annexure P-6) dated 08.02.2021 whereby the police authorities have given
negative report of character antecedents against the petitioner as a result of
which the petitioner has not been appointed by the respondent No.4 which is
an autonomous Government Ayurvedic College at Bhopal.
2. The background facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are that the petitioner was selected to the post of Pharmacist under the
respondent No.4 - Institution. There was some dispute in the matter of
selection process and utlimately the issue was settled by this Court in a batch
of writ petitions against which writ appeals were filed, and ultimately the
issue was settled by this Court in WA No. 949/2018 and connected matters
vide order dated 23.11.2019 and the order of Single Bench was confirmed in
which the present petitioner was one of the petitioners. Thereafter the case of
the petitioner was processed for appointment and the State Government
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
2 WP-7812-2021
directed the respondent No.4 to give order of appointment to the petitioner
vide letter Annexure P-4 dated 18.09.2020. Thereafter a character antecedent
form was got filled up from the petitioner in which the petitioner duly
disclosed fact of he being involved in criminal case under Sections 304-B/34
and 498-A/34 of IPC and further disclosed that he has been acquitted vide
judgment dated 27.06.2013 by the Sessions Court in ST No. 151/2012 by
Sessions Judge, Panna.
3. The police authorities have passed a consequential order
(Annexure P-6) and have declared the petitioner unfit to hold the post by
holding that since offence under Section 304-B IPC is an offence of moral
turpitude as per the instructions issued by the State Government, therefore
the petitioner would not be suitable for the Government service and
therefore, he has been declared disqualified to hold the post in Government
service.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not suppressed his
involvement in a criminal case and he has duly disclosed about the criminal
case. This Court has gone through the judgment of acquittal placed on record
as Annexure P-7, from perusal of which it is evident that the petitioner was
brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased who died by hanging within 7 years of
marriage. The petitioner, his father, his mother, his brothers and wife of his
brothers were all implicated in the criminal case wherein the number of
accused persons was seven. As per the prosecution version the incident took
place on 17.10.2012 in the wee hours which was death by hanging and the
marriage took place with the brother of present petitioner prior to 5 years of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
3 WP-7812-2021
the incident.
5. From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it does not appear that
any specific role was assigned to the petitioner. There were no injuries on the
body and the trial Court found it to be a suicidal death by hanging. The
accused persons took defence that the deceased was suffering from illnesses
and being fedup with her long illness, she committed suicide. The
prosecution failed to establish the case of deceased being subjected to dowry
harassment and after recording evidence, the trial Court considered the ocular
evidence as well as medical evidence and found it to be a case of suicidal
death and did not find any ingredients constituting Section 304-B or 498-A
of IPC against any of the accused persons. The trial Court even did not find it
prove that death took place within seven years of marriage and therefore,
acquitted all the accused persons giving them a clean acquittal and only this
much was proved that the death of deceased was by suicidal hanging.
6. From perusal of the entire judgment neither any specific allegation
against the petitioner as per prosecution version can be culled out nor any
specific role assigned to the present petitioner has been mentioned. All the
accused persons have been a given clean and clear acquittal by the trial
Court and present petitioner was not husband of the deceased but was
brother-in-law of the deceased.
7. The police authorities while holding the petitioner disqualified to
hold the post as Government servant have not considered any of the facts of
the case, neither the prosecution version, nor findings of the Court and have
only written this much that since the petitioner was involved in a criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
4 WP-7812-2021
case under Sections 304-B IPC, therefore, the petitioner can be held to a
person of improper character such a presumption could not be arrived at by
the police authority once the petitioner is given clean and clear acquittal by
the trial Court after full trial.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of
Police & another Vs. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598, considered that
when acquittal can be held to be a honourable acquittal and also that a person
of doubtful integrity cannot be allowed to work in public service.
9. Subsequently, in the case of Avtar Singh (2016 (8) SCC 471) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
5 WP-7812-2021
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
6 WP-7812-2021
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.
The Supreme Court has held that 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, then the employer may consider all relevant
facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the
continuance of the employee. It was further held that even if the employee
had made declaration truthfully of concluded criminal case then also
employer still has right to consider the antecedents.
10. Thereafter, in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and
others Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others 2018(1)SCC 797, the Supreme Court
held that even though acquittal is based on compromise it is open to
screening committee to examine the suitability of the candidate and take
appropriate decision. The Supreme Court has considered the earlier
judgment in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) and wherein it has held that the
Police Force is a disciplined Force and compromise and settlement are
encouraged to bring about peaceful and amicable atmosphere in the society
and they have to be encouraged also to reduce the arrears of cases but these
considerations cannot be brought in the cases of public employment in order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
7 WP-7812-2021
to maintain integrity and high standard of the Police Force.
11. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Lovkush Meena reported in
AIR 2021 SC 1610, the supreme Court has held as under:-
"16. In a similar factual scenario to the extent
of recruitment to the posts of Subedars,
Platoon Commandants and Inspectors of
Police in pursuance to an advertisement and
disqualification of one of the candidates
being assailed resulted in a judgment of this
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v.
Abhijit Singh Pawar4 by a two Judge Bench.
Suffice to say, in the factual context, a case
registered in the year 2006 was pending on
the date when affidavit was tendered and
within four days the compromise was entered
into between the original complainant and the
respondent. An application for compounding
was filed. The compounding was found to be
permissible as it dealt with offences under
Sections 294,325/34,323,506 Part II of the
IPC and on discussion of the legal principle
enunciated in the earlier judgments, it was
opined that the earlier judgment in the case of
Commissioner of Police v Mehar Singh5 it
was opined that there is no doubt about the
proposition that even after the disclosure is
made by a candidate, the employer would be
well within his rights to consider the
antecedent and suitability of the candidate. In
this context, it was held, the employer is
entitled to 4(2018) 18 SCC 733 5(2013) 7
SCC 685 take into account the job profile for
which the selection is undertaken, the
severity of the charge levelled against the
candidate and whether acquittal in question
was an honourable acquittal or was merely on
the ground of benefit of doubt as a result of
composition. We may also add that one
aspect which was noticed which is common
with the present case is the absence of any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
8 WP-7812-2021
suggestion that the decision was actuated by
malafide or suffered on other accounts except
the issue raised of the subsequent circular
applicable. "
12. In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & anr, 2023(12)
SCC 317 the Supreme Court considered the position where the FIR was
lodged after submission of the application form which is also the case
herebecause the petitioner appeared in the selection process in the year 2010
while the FIR was lodged in the year 2012. In the said case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"17. One distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that
the criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was
registered post submission of the application form. We
have also taken into account the nature of the
allegations made in the criminal case and that the matter
was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude.
Further, the proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal.
As is clear from para 38 in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v.
Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC
(L&S) 425] , all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket
and a degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the
authorities, must be exercised with care and caution
taking all the facts and circumstances into
consideration, including the nature and type of lapse. "
In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has considered the position
that though the authorities are at liberty and have a discretion to consider the
candidature of the candidate but that discretion must be exercised with care
and caution taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into
consideration including the nature and type of lapse of the
employee/applicant for employment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36219
9 WP-7812-2021
13. Though in the present case it was a case of clean and clear
acquittal and by perusal of judgment of acquittal it does not appear that what
specific role assigned to the present applicant who was brother-in-law of
deceased. All the accused persons have been given clean and clear acquittal
and it appears that the police authorities are under impression that in each
case of prosecution for offences involving moral turpitude, even if there is
clean acquittal then the candidate acquires disqualification for entire life.
14. In the present case, in view of the clear acquittal given by the
trial Court to the petitioner, he does not appear to be disqualified to hold the
post and the findings given by the police authorities declaring the petitioner
to be of improper character so as to hold the post in Government service
does not appear to be correct view taken by the police authorities.
15. Consequently, the impugned order Annexure P-6 is set aside.
The respondents are directed to give effect to the result and selection of the
petitioner and issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner. The
petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
