Madhya Pradesh High Court
Upendra Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
1 WP-25524-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 25 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 25524 of 2024
UPENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shantanu Vakte - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order of termination dated 9/6/2025 Annexure P-9, appellate
order, Annexure P-11 dated 23/8/2016, order dated 16/3/2017, Annexure P-14 and
also order dated 19/4/2024, Annexure P-17 and seeking a direction to the
respondents to give arrears of the salary from the date of termination of the
services of the petitioner alongwith 12% interest.
2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed on
04.07.2012 on the post of Constable (Driver) under Respondent No. 2 and given
the rank of constable No. 536 by the department. The petitioner's wife was living
with her mother and father due to family dispute between petitioner and her. The
petitioner's wife registered a case bearing crime No.13/2009 dated 14.01.2009
under Section 498(A), 323, 506 IPC case before Mahila Police station Indore and
other case under crime No. 309/2008 under Sections 324, 294, 506, 279, and 34
IPC. In this matter the petitioner was co-accused and case was registered at the
Police Station Dhar. In this matter the Petitioner was acquitted prior to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
2 WP-25524-2024
appointment. Petitioner's wife also stated in complaint that the petitioner has
obtained Post of the constable suppressing facts at the time of appointment of the
petitioner and that the petitioner had made second marriage with the Pinky
Chouhan and by wedlock there are two sons Krishna and Kush. The Respondent
No. 2 forwarded above complaint to the Additional SP Distt. Dewas.on
21.01.2014 and directed that enquiry be conducted with respective complaint filed
by the wife of Upendra Singh. After the enquiry the respondent No.2/SP Dewas
sent letter dated 21.02.2014 to the respondent No. 3 alongwith enquiry report and
complaint of Pratibha Chouhan mentioning that complainant Pratibha Chouhan
was married with petitioner on 09.05.2006 and by report dated 24.01.2009 a
Crime No.13/09 Undersection 498(A), 323, 506 IPC was registered against the
petitioner and which is pending before IMFC Indore as Case No. 3506 and it is
found that Crime No.309/08 section 324, 294, 506, 279 and 34 IPC was registered
on 24.04.2008. This case has been disposed of on 31.03.2011 before JMFC Dhar
and this case was disposed of before appointment of petitioner. The above
information has been suppressed at the time of verification of character form. The
enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner by the City Superintendent of
Police and in the enquiry report it is mentioned that the charges levelled against
the petitioner has been proved. The copy of the enquiry report has been given to
the petitioner for representing the defense against the enquiry report. Petitioner
challenged the termination order dated 09.06.2015 before the High court Bench at
Indore in WP. No.530/2015 and by order dated 13.08.2015, he was directed to
file an appeal against the order of dismissal. The petitioner filed an appeal before
respondent No.3 and by order dated 23.08.2016 appeal was dismissed. The
petitioner filed mercy petition dated 01.03.2016 which was also rejected by order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
3 WP-25524-2024
dated 16.03.2017. Due to compromise between the petitioner and the complainant,
the petitioner was acquitted under section 498(A) by order dated 28.06.2022 by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class District Indore. After acquittal of the petitioner
in above case, he sent a representation dated 06.02.2024 to the Respondent No.4
for consideration of reinstatement in service. By order dated 19.04.2024 the
Additional Director General of police (Legal 1) has rejected the representation.
3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of
termination of the petitioner on the ground of suppression of criminal case or
mentioning of incorrect statements in the verification form, is contrary to the
provisions of MP Police Regulation 226 (III) and (V) and Regulation 241 in
which it is stated that after the acquittal, employee should be reinstated in service.
He further argued that the termination on the ground of suppression of
misrepresentation of facts and verification is contrary to the judgment passed by
the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2016
(8) SCC 471 equivalent to 2016 (4) MPLJ SC 332 . He referred paras 21, 22 of the
said judgment.
4. The respondents filed reply and submitted that passing of order of
termination after the departmental enquiry is legal and valid. The representation of
the petitioner has been considered in the light of the judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Avtar singh (supra) as well as judgment by this
Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs. High Court of M.P and Another, 2018 (2)
MPLJ 419 and also the other various judgments passed by the Apex Court and this
Court. In the case of Ashutosh Pawar(supra) after referring to the judgment passed
in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr.
reported in (2008) 1 SCC 797 this Court held that mere acquittal in a criminal
case would not be sufficient to infer that a candidate possesses good character.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
4 WP-25524-2024
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
service of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that the petitioner had
suppressed material information and the facts in the affidavit filed alongwith the
verification form. The material information which were suppressed and
misrepresented are as under:-
A) Petitioner being a married candidate has shown himself as unmarried.
B) The petitioner also having children at that but his fact was suppressed.
C) Information about criminal case registered against the petitioner has also
been suppressed by the petitioner.
6. Upon perusal of Annexure R-1/application form which contains
declaration and verification by the petitioner and also the affidavit it is noted that
against the petitioner, a criminal case was registered bearing Crime No.309/08
section 324, 294, 506, 279 and 34 IPC on 24.04.2008. Admittedly, the said case
was pending against the petitioner on the date of filing of the application and
verification form. Clause 16, 17 & 18 of the application and verification form are
reproduced as under:-
16. या आप पर कभी कोई अपराध पंजीब हुआ है या आप
कसी आपरािधक करण म िगरफतार हुए ह, य द हाँ तो उसका
पूण ववरण िलख :...............नह ं...................
17. या आप पर कभी भी अिभयोजन कया गया है या कसी
अपराध के िलए यायालय ारा दोषी ठहराया गया है , य द हाँ तो
उसका पूण ववरण िलख : ...............नह ं...................
18. ववा हत ह या ववा हत
:........................अ ववा हत..............
(1) य द ववा हत है तो ववाह क तार ख
िलख.............................
(2) कतनी संतान है ? उनका ज म दनांक अलग-अलग प
िलख .............नह ं...................
घोषणा प
म मा णत करता/करती हू ं क पूव व णत जानकार जहाँ तक
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
5 WP-25524-2024
मुझे पता है , जहाँ तक मेरा व ास है , सह और पूण है । ऐसी कसी
भी प र थितय से अवगत नह ं हू,ँ जनके कारण शासन के
अधीन िनयोजन पाये जाने पर मेर उपयु ता ीण होगी। मेरे
ारा दशायी गयी उपरो जानकार म य द कोई जानकार अस य
पायी जाती है । तो म उसके िलये पूण उ रदायी रहूग
ं ा/रहूग
ं ी।
दनांक 28/01/2012
थान धार
उपे
उ मीदवार के ह ता र
आवेदक का नाम .....उपे .....
7. In the verification form, in column 5 regarding information in respect of
spouse/wife, he mentioned "nil". In column nuber 12 (A) in regard to the
registration of criminal case, prosecution and arrest he mentioned "nil". The said
columns are reproduced as under:-
या आप कभी िगर तार कये गये है । या आप पर कभी अिभयोजन चलाया गया है ।
या आप कभी िन कये गये है या आप से मुचलका िलया गया है / आप पर जुमाना
कया गया है , या आप कभी कसी अपराध के िलये यायालय ारा दोषी ठहराये गये है
12-
या आपको कसी भी लोकसेवा आयोग ारा उसके ारा संचािलत पर ाओं कये जाने नह ं.
(क)
वाले चयन म स मिलत होने से व जत कया गया है । उसके िलये अनहत ठहराया गया
है या या आपको कसी भी व िल ालय या कसी भी अ य शे णक ािधकरण
सं था ारा कसी भी पर ा म बैठने से व जत कया गया है िन कािसत कया गया है ।
या इस अनु माणन फाम के भरते समय कसी भी यायालय व व ालयः या कसी म
शै णक ािधकरण सं था म आपके व कोई मामला लं बत है ? य द (क) अथवा (ख) म
पूछे गये ो के संबंध म आपका उ र हां हो तो आपको इस अनु माणन फाम को भरते समय
(ख) मामले, िगरफतार , िनरोध, जुमाने दोषिस , तथा द डादे श आ द के पुरे यौरे तुत करने
चा हये तथा इस फाम को भरते समय यायालय- व व ालय-शे णक ािधकरण आ द के
सम जो मामला लं बत हो उसका व प बतलाना चा हये इस जानकार के अित र जहां
लागू हो वहां िन निल खत यौरे भी दये जायेगे।
एक अपराध आरोप नह
दो नह
पुिलस थाने म पंजीियत
तीन य द यायालय म चालान तुत कया गया हो तो यायालय का नाम नह
चार मामले का माँ क यायालय ारा उसका िनपटारा कस तार ख को कया गय नह
पांच दया गया द ड नह
छह या दोषमु कर दया गया है ? नह
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
6 WP-25524-2024
सात दोषमु स दे श के लाभ पर आधा रत थी या मामला वापस ले िलया गया था। नह
8. The said form is on declaration and the same is signed by the petitioner
himself which reads as under:-
म मा णत करता हू ं क पूववतीं जानकार , जहां तक मुझे पता है
और जहां तक मेरा व ास है , सह और पूण है । म ऐसी क ह भी
प र थितय से अवगत नह ं ह जनके कारण शासन के अधीन
िनयोजन पाने के िलये मेर उपयु ता ीण होती हो, म इस बात
से सहमत हू ँ क य द उपयु जानकार कसी सारभूत त य के
संबंध म अस य या अपूण पाई जाये तो िनयुित ािधकार को बना
सूचना दये या बना कारण बताये मेर सेवाएँ समा करने
का अिधकार होगा और उसका िनणय मुझ पर बंधनकार होगा।
दनांक 28/01/2012
थान धार
उ मीदवार के ह ता र
9. Apart from that in support of the form he also filed an affidavit and in
para 2, he specifically stated on affidavit that till this date no case is registered
against him at any Police Station and no criminal case is pending in any Court of
law. In para 3, he further stated on affidavit that every information regarding
character verification is correct and true to his personal knowledge. The relevant
para 2 & 3 of affidavit is reproduced as under:-
2- यह क म एक शांित य नाग रक हू ं मेरे व कसी भी थाने
से कोई आपरािधक करण आज दनांक तक पंजीब नह हुआ है
एवं न ह पूव म कोई करण यायालय म वचाराधीन था एवं न
ह वतमान म वचाराधीन है
3- यह क मुझ शपथ हता ारा च र स यापन के
अनु मा णक से फॉम म जो जानकार दो गई है वह मेर िनजी
जानकार के अनुसार स य एवं सह है तथा मेरे कोई अस य
जानकार नह भर गई है
10. Since, the charges have been found to be proved in the departmental
enquiry in regard to suppression and misrepresentation of criminal record and
factum of marriage and children and before this Court also the petitioner did not
deny the filling of the aforesaid forms and affidavit by him. As already considered
that two criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and one was pending
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
7 WP-25524-2024
on the date of filing of form and signing of affidavit. The case relating to domestic
violence Act was decided on 7/5/2010. It is also not in dispute that on the date of
filling the attestation form and affidavit, he was already married and was having
children but the said facts were suppressed and misrepresented in the form.
11. To appreciate the submission of counsel for the petitioner regarding his
reliance on paras 21 & 22 of the judgment of Avatar Singh (supra) it is apt to
reproduce paras 21 and 22 of the judgment of Avtar Singh.
21. 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 ne 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-disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all
kind of cases?
22. The employer is given 'discretion' to terminate or
otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
8 WP-25524-2024
employer has the power to take a decision when at the time
of filling verification form declarant has already been
convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that
all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact
of suppression or false information are taken into
consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent
for services in question. In case the employer come to the
conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts
would have been disclosed would not have affected
adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be
recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while
doing so employer has to act prudently due consideration of
nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher
officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even
slightest false information or suppression may by itself
render a person unsuitable for the post. However same
standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In
concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been
suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an
incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be
justified in not appointing or if appointed to terminate
services of such incumbent on due consideration of various
aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the
employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so
effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of
offence etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been
made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether
acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on
technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is
unfit or dubious character. In case employer comes to
conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal
case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent
may be appointed or continued in service.
12. In para 21, the Apex Court observed that 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
9 WP-25524-2024
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-disclosure.
13. In para 22 the Apex Court held that while adjudging suitability of an
incumbent for services in question. In case the employer come to the conclusion
that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed would
not have affected adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it
has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act
prudently due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher
officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false
information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post.
However same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded
criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and
would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be
justified in not appointing or if appointed to terminate services of such incumbent
on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made
truthfully the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect
of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence etc. have to be
considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of
offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical
reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. In case
employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal
case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be appointed or
continued in service. Thus, para 22 of the judgment also applies to a case of
termination of an employer on the ground of suppression/misrepresentation of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
10 WP-25524-2024
facts in the verification form.
14. It is a pre-condition in the police service that candidate should be of
worthy confidence and of an utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character
and integrity. The persons having criminal antecedents would not fall within the
ambit or the said category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be
presumed that he was completely exonerated from all charges honourably.
15. In a recent judgment reported in 2023 Live Law (SC)44 SLP No.
10499/2022 Ex-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of India wherein
the Court has dismissed the Appeal by holding that:-
"The petitioner having been found to have committed gross
misconduct right at the threshold of entering into disciplined
force like CISF, and the respondent authorities having
passed the order of his removal from service after following
due process of law and without actuated by malafides, the
Court is not inclined to exercise its limited jurisdiction
under Art. 136 of the Constitution".
16. The answering respondents also submit that in the case of State of M.P.
Vs. Parvez Khan reported in 2015 (2) SCC 591 , the Supreme Court has
considered the case of the police personnel and has observed as follows :-
"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 Page 12 Civil Appeal No.of 2014 @ SLP (C)
No.36237 of 2012 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 learned counsel for
the Respondent, in the present case, the Superintendent of
Police has goneinto the matter. The Superintendent of Police
is the appointing authority. There is no allegation of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
11 WP-25524-2024
malafides 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 is acquittal for want of
evidence or discharge based on compounding."
17. In the case of police personnel a special caution has to be taken by the
Department. In the case of Roop Narayan Sahu Vs. State of M.P.(W.A
No.163/2009) this Court found that since there was a compromise between the
accused and the complainant and the acquittal was not fare acquittal, therefore, the
Court also declined to give the relief to the petitioner/appellant. While passing the
final order in the case of Roop Narayan (supra) in para 14 this Court has held as
under
"Thus, the decision taken by the Department was not
mechanical, but it was a conscious decision after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in
proper perspective. Further, if a candidate is to be recruited
to the Police Service, he must be worthy confidence of an
utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and
integrity. The persons having criminal antecedents would
not fall within the ambit or the said category. Even if he is
acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he can be
completely exonerated."
18. In a similar case W.A.No. 217/2017 (State of M.P. Vs.Bhanu Singh
Sikarwar) this Court has also declined to interfere under similar facts and
circumstances of the case whereby after taking into consideration the facts of that
case,this Court arrived at conclusion that:-
Evident it is from the order dated 06.12.2013 that except the
antecedent forming subject matter of Crime No.266/201 I,
there is no other criminal case pending against the
respondent nor it is shown that the is involved in other case.
"Antecedent" as per Chambers 21st Century Dictionary
means "an event or circumstance which precedes another".
As per Black's Law Dictionary, it is an adjective which
means "Earlier; preexisting; previous and when aword
depicted quality or fact of going before." In view whereof, it
was incumbent upon the competent authority to have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23615
12 WP-25524-2024
examined the antecedent of the respondent not only in the
context of the crimeregistered vide Crime No.266/2011 but
also it was required to cause a deeper probe as to the past of
therespondent, which as apparent from the order, hasnot
been done. It is only on the basis of declaration given by the
respondent in his verification form as regard to registration
of an offence vide CrimeNo.266/2011 wherein he was
acquitted on the basis of compromise, a conclusion is
arrived at by the Authority concerned that the respondent's
antecedent is not germane for he being appointed in the
police force. Such a conclusion without any foundation
cannot be given the stamp of approval. Learned Single Judge
was, thus, within his right in setting aside the order and
directing for consequential benefit following the said
quashment, as would warrant any interference.
Consequently, present appeal fails and is dismissed. There
shall be no costs.
19. Apart from that the respondents have found, in view of Rule 53 (C) of
M.P Police Regulation on the ground of registration of criminal case and
suppression of criminal information, that the petitioner is not fit for continuing on
the post of Police Constable. The conduct of the petitioner is also against
Regulation No.53 & 57 of the M.P Police Regulation.
20. In view of the aforesaid, facts and enunciation of law this Court does
not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondents. The petition being
devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
