Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development ... vs Mohanlal Pantel on 6 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12075
1 WA-1570-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1570 of 2024
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
INDORE LTD. A GOVT. OF M.P. THROUGH ITS MANAGING D
Versus
MOHANLAL PANTEL
Appearance:
Shri Rishabh Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Appellant has filed this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Khandpith Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005
against the order dated 13.04.2024 passed by the Writ Court, whereby the
Writ Petition No.16067 of 2019 has been allowed.
02. The respondent was engaged as a Class IV employee on the post of
Helper by the appellant in the year 1991, his services were regularised on the
post of Helper and he was called upon to submit a character verification form
alongwith an affidavit that no criminal case is registered against him. The
writ petitioner submitted a form which was sent to the Police Department for
verification. An information was received from the Deputy Inspector
General, Bhopal vide letter dated 23.09.2014 that a crime No.543/2011 was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12075
2 WA-1570-2024
registered under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, vide judgment dated 31.07.2014,
he has been acquitted from the charges. The DIG has opined that the offence
under Section 498-A of IPC is of moral turpitude which is serious in nature.
03. The writ petitioner submitted a representation for grant of annual
increment. Vide impugned order dated 05.07.2019, his claim has been
rejected on the ground of his character verification report hence, the writ
petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition. The writ petition
was opposed by the present appellant. The Writ Court has held that it is not
in dispute that the writ petitioner suppressed the fact about registration of
criminal case against him, but the case was arising out of the matrimonial
dispute between son of the writ petitioner and his wife. The Writ Court has
placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Ravindra Kumar v/s State of U.P. and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 180 and set aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2019. Hence, this writ
appeal before this Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the entire record.
04. Once the writ petitioner has been regularised on the post of Helper,
therefore, he became entitled to get an annual increment, the appellant has
wrongly denied the annual increment only on the ground of character
verification. Although, it is correct that the criminal case is registered against
him in which the writ petitioner was a coaccused, the main accused was his
son who had a matrimonial dispute with his wife however, the appellant has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12075
3 WA-1570-2024
been acquitted. The respondent is working with the present appellant
Corporation since the date of initial appointment in the year 1991 and there
is no complaint about his working. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the
case of Ravindra Kumar (supra) in paragraphs No.31 & 33 has held as
under:
''31. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal
case; the overall consideration of the judgement of acquittal; the nature
of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of the
character verification reports; the socio economic strata of the
individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature
of consideration and the contents of the cancellation/termination order
are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict
in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be
ordered.
xxxxxxxxxx
33. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special
circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non32 disclosure of
the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in
the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case,
we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-
brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and
the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground
realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case
will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and
the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria,
with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one
size fits all scenario."
(Emphasis Supplied)
05. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that non-disclosure of a
criminal case could not deem to be fatal, therefore, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12075
4 WA-1570-2024
