Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Singh Rana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
1 WP-28601-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28601 of 2022
SHAILENDRA SINGH RANA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Alok Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Prajapati - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated
15.06.2022, whereby his candidature for appointment on the post of Home
Guard (Sainik) has been cancelled on account of his involvement in various
criminal cases.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable (Sainik) in Home Guard
Department temporarily to give services in Simhastha Mahakumbh of 2016.
After completion of Simhastha, Home Guard/Constables (Sainik) were
discontinued by the State Government with the assurance for re-
appointment. The State Government thereafter issued a circular dated
17.04.2018 (Annexure P/2) for giving appointment to 2790 temporary
Home Guards. As a special case, one time relaxation was given in the matter
of recruitment.
3. The petitioner participated in the process of recruitment and was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
2 WP-28601-2022
selected. During verification of his antecedents, it was found that the
petitioner was involved in various criminal cases. The details of which are
given hereunder :
(1) Crime No.23/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections
294, 506-B, 336, 327, 34 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms
Act, in which he was acquitted on 17.03.2011.
(2) Crime No.52/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections
307, 147, 148, 149, 394, 506-B of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of
Arms Act, in which the petitioner was acquitted on 29.03.2011 by
giving benefit of doubt.
(3) Crime No.3/2004 for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 294, 341, 506, 34 and 336 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of
SC/ST Act, in which the petitioner was acquitted on 05.12.2014
based upon the compromise between the parties.
(4) Crime No.23/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections
341, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC, in which the petitioner was
acquitted on 09.12.2017 on the basis of compromise.
4. In view of the aforesaid involvement of the petitioner in multiple
criminal cases, the Director General, Home Guards and Public Security,
Bhopal cancelled the petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of
Home Guard (Sainik), vide impugned order dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure
P/1). Challenging this order, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned
order, submitted that the petitioner was recommended for appointment by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
3 WP-28601-2022
Screening Committee vide order dated 24.01.2019 (Annexure P/4) and,
therefore, the Director General, Bhopal was not competent to decline the
appointment to the petitioner. He further submitted that in all the cases
referred above, the petitioner has already been acquitted and, therefore, the
same cannot be used as disqualification for appointment. The learned
counsel also submitted that the appointment in question was required to be
made pursuant to the policy framed by the Government vide order dated
17.04.2018 (Annexure P/2), wherein only condition prescribed was that the
incumbent should not have been involved in any criminal case during or after
his engagement as Sainik during Simhastha. He submitted that all the
criminal cases were prior to his engagement as Sainik during Simhastha and,
therefore, could not be a ground for denying him appointment. The learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court at Indore in the case of Manohar Vs. State of M.P.
(W.P.No.14230/2023), wherein in similar circumstances, the petitioner
therein was directed to be appointed as Home Guard, Sainik.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner was involved in
multiple criminal cases and, therefore, he has been rightly not found suitable
for appointment on the post of Home Guard. The learned counsel submitted
that even if there is no provision made in the order dated 17.04.2018, the
employer is entitled to consider the antecedents of the incumbent. A person
having involved in multiple criminal cases cannot be appointed in a
disciplined force like Home Guard. He relied upon the Apex Court judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
4 WP-28601-2022
in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & another Vs. Mehar
Singh reported in (2013)7 SCC 685 and also in the case of State of M.P. &
others Vs. Parvez Khan reported in (2015)2 SCC 591.
7. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
8. The issue with regard to appointment of a person having criminal
antecedent is considered by the Apex Court in the case of Mehar Singh
(supra), wherein the Apex Court held as under:
"22. Clause (3) of the comprehensive policy delineated in the
Standing Order is material for the present case. It refers to the
Screening Committee comprising high police officers. After a
candidate, who has disclosed his involvement, is acquitted or
discharged, the Committee has to assess his/her suitability for
appointment. Clause (6) states that those against whom serious
offences or offences involving moral turpitude are registered and
who are later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or
because the witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by
the accused person shall not generally be considered suitable for
government service. However, all such cases will be considered
by the Screening Committee manned by senior officers. In our
opinion, the word "generally" indicates the nature of discretion.
As a matter of rule, such candidates have to be avoided.
Exceptions will be few and far between and obviously must be
substantiated with acceptable reasons.
23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the
Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved
in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if
they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or
discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The
Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the
candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
5 WP-28601-2022
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
6 WP-28601-2022
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 force is
tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
7 WP-28601-2022
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.
9. The law laid down in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) was reiterated
by Apex Court in the case of Parvez Khan (supra). The Apex Court in para
13 held 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
8 WP-28601-2022
10. Therefore, it is in the exclusive domain of the employer to consider
the candidature of a candidate while giving appointment. The factum of
involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid four criminal cases is not
disputed by him. The petitioner only submits that he has already been
acquitted in all the aforesaid cases and, therefore, he is entitled for
appointment. The submissions so made by counsel for the petitioner is not
acceptable. In Crime No.52/2009, the petitioner was acquitted by giving
benefit of doubt. Further, in Crime No.3/2004 and 23/2017, he was acquitted
on the basis of compromise between the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said
that he was honourably acquitted by the Court in all the aforesaid cases.
Even otherwise, acquittal in the criminal case would not be an impediment
for an employer to consider the criminal antecedents of the candidate.
11. Clause - C of the order 17.04.2018 provides that a candidate should
not have been involved in any criminal case during or after his engagement
as Sainik in Simhastha. In the case in hand, one of the case being Crime
No.23/2017 was registered against the petitioner after his engagement as
Sainik in Simhastha, in the year 2016. Therefore, under Clause - C of the
order dated 17.04.2018 also, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment.
The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the order passed
in the case of Manohar (Supra) is of no help to him.
12. From the impugned order, it is gathered that meeting of Screening
Committee was held on 07.12.2018, wherein the recommendation was made
for taking action as per the Apex Court guidelines, in view of the multiple
criminal cases registered against the petitioner. The document filed as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17177
9 WP-28601-2022
Annexure P/4 appears to be an order other than the recommendation of the
Screening Committee. In view of the settled legal position, it is to be held
that employer was competent to examine and verify the antecedents of the
petitioner before granting appointment.
13. In view of the fact that the petitioner was involved in the multiple
criminal cases, in which he was acquitted either by giving benefit of doubt or
on the basis of compromise, the impugned order dated 15.06.2022 cannot be
said to be illegal or otherwise unjustified. The same is accordingly upheld.
Consequently, this petition is found to be without any substance and is
accordingly dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
