Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Pateria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
1 WP-25510-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 25510 of 2021
RAGHVENDRA PATERIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Rajendra Singh Dhakar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naval Kishore Gupta - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This is the fourth visit of the petitioner to this Court in connection with
his candidature for appointment on the post of Constable (GD). This time the
petitioner has again invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order, dated 05.07.2021, (Annexure P-1) whereby, upon
reconsideration, his candidature for the aforesaid post has been rejected on
the ground of his involvement in a criminal case.
2 . The facts necessary for decision of the case are that the petitioner
participated in the process of selection for the post of Constable (GD) in the
year 2013. Having successfully participated in the written test, his
credentials were sent for verification. It was found that a criminal case was
registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 325, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was also found that the
petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case vide order, dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
2 WP-25510-2021
08.04.2009, (Annexure R-1) on the basis of the compromise between the
parties. The matter was placed before the screening committee which found
that the petitioner is not suitable for the post in question. Accordingly, vide
communication, dated 13.11.2013, (Annexure P-2) the petitioner was
declared unsuitable for appointment on the post of Constable (GD).
3 . The petitioner challenged the communication, dated 13.11.2013,
by filing W.P. No.188/2014 before this Court. At the time of hearing of the
said writ petition, the petitioner sought liberty of this Court to file a
representation before the respondents in view of the order passed by this
Court in one of the similar case. Accordingly, without deciding it on merits,
the petition was disposed of vide order, dated 14.02.2014, (Annexure P-3)
extending liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent
authorities. Availing the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner made a
representation to the respondents which came to be rejected vide
communication dated 16.05.2014 (Annexure P-4).
4 . The petitioner again filed a writ petition before this Court, which
was subject matter of W.P. No.4237/2014 challenging the order, dated
16.05.2014. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court
directing the respondents to reconsider petitioner's candidature taking into
account the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India & others reported in 2016(8) SCC 471 as also the order
passed by this Court in W.P. No.3719/2014(S). In compliance of the order
passed by this Court, the matter was again placed before the screening
committee. The petitioner was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
3 WP-25510-2021
After reconsidering the matter, the petitioner's candidature was again rejected
vide order, dated 30.03.2017. The petitioner once again approached this
Court by filing W.P. No.16079/2018 challenging the order dated 30.03.2017.
This writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated
25.02.2021, again remitting the matter to the authorities to reconsider the
matter and to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the fact of
petitioner's acquittal and his previous conduct.
5 . In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the matter was
again considered by the screening committee and vide impugned
communicated, dated 05.07.2021, (Annexure P-1) his candidature is rejected
again. The respondent authorities have considered the petitioner's conduct
keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another vs. Mehar Singh reported in
2013(7) SCC 685 as also in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others vs.
Parvez Khan reported in 2015(2) SCC 591 . The authorities while considering
the petitioner's conduct has observed as under:
"2. यह करण मान० उ च यायालय ख डपीठ, वािलयर के सम
तुत रट यािचका . 16079/2018 म पा रत िनणय दनांक
25.02.2021 के पालन म पुनः पर ण कये जाने पर और सम प से
गहन वचार करने पर पाया क अ यथ ारा हं सक तर के से गंभीर
कृ ित क चोट पहुचं ाई जसम क घायल के अ थभंग हुए और कई
चोट आ जो क 6 से०मी० से 11 से०मी० तक ल बी थीं, प करता है
क अ यथ आपरािधक वृ का है । पुिलस जहां क आम नाग रक के
ऊपर कानूनन बल योग का अिधकार रखती है और फायर आ स का
उपयोग तक कर सकती है , वहां आपरािधक मानिसकता वाले य को
ऐसी ज मेदार नह ं द जा सकती।"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
4 WP-25510-2021
The petitioner has thus approached this Court challenging the order
dated 05.07.2021.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
having acquitted in the criminal case, the charge levelled against him is
washed off and it has to be treated as if the petitioner has no criminal history.
He submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that except one
case, he has no other criminal background and, therefore, he could not have
been discarded solely based upon solitary instance of criminal case. He also
submitted that the petitioner had fairly disclosed the factum of criminal case
in question which shows his fair conduct. The authorities failed to consider
this aspect of the matter. It is his submission that despite repeated direction
by this Court, respondent authorities have failed to objectively consider the
petitioner's candidature for the post of Constable (GD). It is his submission
that except the solitary instance of the aforesaid criminal case, there is no
other criminal antecedent of the petitioner and, therefore, the candidature of
the petitioner ought to have been accepted for appointment on the aforesaid
post. He placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of
Ratnesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others passed in
W.P.No.2877/2023.
7 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner is aspiring for a post in
a disciplined force. The conduct of the candidate in such a disciplined force
is required to be unblemished. It is his submission that involvement of the
petitioner in a criminal case for offence under Section 325 of IPC shows his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
5 WP-25510-2021
criminal mentality. Besides relying upon Apex Court judgment in the case of
Mehar Singh & Parvez Khan (supra) , he also relied upon the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Vs. Bhupendra Yadav reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1181. The learned
counsel for the respondents further submitted that Government of Madhya
Pradesh has issued a circular, dated 05.06.2003, (Annexure P-5), wherein
offence under Section 325 of IPC has been categorized as an offence
involving moral turpitude. It is his submission that the acquittal based upon
the compromise between the parties is not a clean acquittal and, therefore,
the authorities were entitled to consider petitioner's conduct while deciding
his candidature for appointment. He also submitted that the petitioner's
candidature has been considered thrice, but is not found suitable for the post.
He thus, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this
instant writ petition and same deserves to be dismissed.
8. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
9 . The issue of cancellation of appointment due to involvement of
candidate in criminal case is not new and has been raised time and again
before the Courts. Similar issue was considered by Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013)7 SCC 685 . It
was also case where the incumbent was aspiring for post in Police
Department and was discarded on account of his involvement in criminal
case which ended in acquittal on the basis of compromise. The Apex Court,
dealing with the issue, held as under:
"22. Clause (3) of the comprehensive policy delineated in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
6 WP-25510-2021
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
7 WP-25510-2021
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
8 WP-25510-2021
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
9 WP-25510-2021
10. Considering the aforesaid binding law laid down by Apex Court,
the arguments made by petitioner's counsel needs to be considered. The
submission of the petitioner's counsel that on account of petitioner's acquittal
in criminal case, the stigma is washed off and, therefore, his candidature
ought to have been considered by respondents as if there was no criminal
case lodged against the petitioner, is not acceptable in view of the
observation made by Apex Court in para 33 quoted above. Further, the
observations made in para 22 & 23 makes it evident that the exclusive
discretion is granted to the screening committee to judge the suitability of
candidate in the available facts of the case and such discretion exercised
would not be liable to be interfered with unless it is shown to have been
exercised malafidely. There is no allegation of malafide made by petitioner
in the instant writ petition.
11 . The law laid down in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) was
reiterated by Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Parvez
Khan reported in (2015)2 SCC 591 . 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
10 WP-25510-2021
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.
12. In the case in hand also, there was no conclusive finding given
by Court that the petitioner was not guilty of offence allegedly committed by
him. It is also not his case that he was falsely implicated in the case. Thus,
the screening committee was competent to consider the petitioner's
candidature for the post.
13. The counsel for both the parties relied upon the Apex Court
judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported
i n (2016)8 SCC 471 . This judgment infact support the decision of the
respondents, in view of the following observations made by Apex Court:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
11 WP-25510-2021
of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to
consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate."
14. Yet another argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that his
candidature could not have been discarded based upon solitary instance of
criminal case and the respondent ought to have considered that there is no
other criminal case lodged against him. This argument of petitioner's counsel
is also not acceptable in view of Apex Court judgment in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bhupendra Yadav reported in 2023 SCC
Online SC 1181. The Apex Court held in para 25 as under:
"25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that mere acquittal of the
respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle
him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The
appellant-State Government has judiciously exercised its
discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors relating to the
antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal
case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted,
apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can
make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable.
The said decision taken by the appellant-State Government is not
tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to
have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgment dated
17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge is
upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment
dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court. The appeal is allowed. Parties are left to bear their
own costs."
1 5 . The petitioner's counsel placed reliance upon judgment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
12 WP-25510-2021
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Singh vs. State
of M.P. & ors. passed in W.P. No.2877 of 2023. On going through the facts
of the said case, it is gathered that this Court examined the facts of criminal
case on merits and came to a conclusion that the very prosecution of
petitioner therein was unjustified. It is also found in para 20 of the judgment
that the petitioner therein was not the main assailant and roped in criminal
case alongwith his brother and father. Thus, on the facts of the case, this
Court interfered with order of respondents and granted relief to the
petitioner. However, in the case in hand, the petitioner has not brought on
record sufficient material to examine the criminal case on merits. The FIR
brought on record shows that the petitioner caused injuries to the victim. The
learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain documents obtained by
petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 and submitted that the
injuries caused to victim would not attract offence under Section 325 of IPC.
This submission of petitioner's counsel could not be accepted inasmuch as in
the FIR, it is mentioned that the victim suffered fracture on account of injury
no.1 & 2 which would attract Section 325 IPC. Thus, at this stage, the
document filed to the contrary cannot be considered by this Court.
16. Considering the aforesaid discussion of fact and law, it is evident
that the screening committee has considered and re-considered petitioner's
candidature for appointment on post in question thrice and he is not found
suitable every time. Further, except harping upon his acquittal on the basis of
compromise, the petitioner has not stated anything on merits of the criminal
case demonstrating that he was falsely implicated or his involvement in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12090
13 WP-25510-2021
criminal case was trivial in nature. Accordingly, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the decision taken by screening committee in
cancelling petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of Constable
(GD). The petition is accordingly found without any substance and is
accordingly dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
