Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
1 WP-10408-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10408 of 2025
MUKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Petitioner in Person.
Shri Aditya Adhikari-Senior Advocate With Ms. Divya Pal Advocate for
respondent.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for the respondent State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain.
The present petition has been filed putting to challenge the order
Annexure P/1 dated 24.10.2024 issued by State of Madhya Pradesh,
Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, whereby the candidature of the
petitioner for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) in
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services has been rejected as a consequence of
recommendation of High Court.
2. The aforesaid rejection of candidature of the petitioner has taken
place on account of suppression of criminal antecedents in the application
form submitted while making application to the post of Civil Judge, Junior
Division.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
2 WP-10408-2025
3. The petitioner in person has submitted that he is permanent
resident of Village- PipariyaDon, Post Itayan, Tehsil- Pawai, District Panna.
It is contended that during the month of March 2008 two FIRs were
registered in the matter of theft of motor cycles. One was initially against
unknown persons but later on, on the basis of statements of co-accused Indra
Kumar, the name of one Pappu @ Mukesh was roped in, though the village
of the petitioner is about 60 Kms. away from the Village of co-accused Indra
Kumar and also that the petitioner was studying at Chitrakoot which is 164
Kms. away from the place of incident and 200 Kms. away from the village
of Indra Kumar. Therefore, there was no question of involvement of the
present petitioner in the said crimes, though in the second case, petitioner
was allegedly the sole accused. It is further contended that the said two
crimes related to Section 379/34 of IPC and Section 379 of IPC respectively,
which led to Criminal Case No. 422/2008 and 423/2008 before the JMFC,
Panna and the said two cases were disposed of on 05.04.2010 and 25.10.2009
respectively. In the said cases, all the accused persons were acquitted after
trial. It is contended that in the first case there were three accused while in
the second case there was only one accused. The petitioner in person raised
various averments that the accused Mukesh S/o Jeevan Lal in criminal case
No. 422/2008 and Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Jeevan Lal in the criminal case
No. 423/2008 was in fact not the present petitioner and therefore, there was
no question for the present petitioner to have disclosed the said two offences
in his application form. However, it is not disputed that in the application
form the said two cases were not disclosed and application form is duly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
3 WP-10408-2025
placed on record as Annexure R/2-2 with the reply filed by the High Court
before this Court.
4. The petitioner in person further argued that he completed degree
of law in the year 2014 and the High Court issued an advertisement
regarding the vacancy of Law Clerk in the year 2016 in which he applied and
got selected for the post of Law Clerk on contractual basis and while
applying for the said position he had duly disclosed the said two criminal
cases against him. It is further argued that earlier the High Court had issued
an advertisement for the post of Civil Judge, Class-II examination in the year
2016 in which he had applied and was duly selected. However, despite being
acquitted and having no involvement in the criminal cases and despite
closure of the said two cases truthfully in the attestation form and application
form, his candidature was rejected due to the aforesaid criminal cases.
5. It is further contended that in the year 2016 High Court had issued
advertisement for the post of Translator and the petitioner duly applied for
the said post. The petitioner being acquitted and having no involvement in
the offences disclosed about the said criminal cases and he qualified
preliminary, mains and Interview of the said post but could not be selected
and remained in the waitlist.
6. It is further contended that he belongs to Scheduled Caste
Community having Choudhary surname from beginning which continued till
10th Class, but in Class-12th while submitting examination form his friend
filled the surname as Mukesh Kumar "Verma" in place of Mukesh Kumar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
4 WP-10408-2025
"Choudhary" and due to this confusion in the academic record, he was facing
lot of problems including caste verification also. Therefore, subsequently, the
petitioner got his name rectified in mark-sheets of Class-12th and graduation
as Mukesh Kumar "Choudhary" in place of Mukesh Kumar "Verma".
7. The High Court again issued advertisement in the year 2021 for
recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) and he
qualified the said examination and stood in merit list. This time he had not
mentioned the aforesaid criminal cases in the application form because
he had no nexus with those cases and he had already disclosed the said cases
in earlier examination. However, this time also his candidature has been
rejected vide order Annexure P/1 dated 24.10.2024.
8. The petitioner further contended that the High Court has again
issued an advertisement for the post of Translator in the year 2023 in which
the petitioner was selected for the post of Junior Judicial Translator and
appointed vide order dated 29.12.2023 and there is no complaint or remark
against the petitioner but overlooking the performance of the petitioner, his
candidature for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division, has wrongfully been
rejected by the impugned order.
9. Therefore, it is argued that the rejection order dated 24.10.2024 is
unjustified and unreasonable. There is no other cloud on the character of the
petitioner and that if some indiscretion is committed in very young age as the
petitioner was stated to be around 20 years of age at the time the said alleged
offences were committed, then the modern approach should be to reform a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
5 WP-10408-2025
person instead of branding him a criminal for entire life. The petitioner also
referred to various candidates, most particularly the case of one Apurva
Pathak who has been appointed despite having been involved in criminal
case in the past and sought similar treatment.
10. Per contra, Shri Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate for the
State and Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of High Court have referred to reply filed by the High Court and opposed the
contentions of the present petitioner.
11. It is argued that the petitioner was named as an accused in two
criminal cases, the judgments of which are collectively placed on record as
Annexure P/3. It is stated that at this stage it cannot be argued by the
petitioner that he was not the person who was accused in the said criminal
case because the judgment is the only substantive proof of the proceedings of
the Court. It is further argued that it is incumbent upon the candidate to
truthfully disclose the criminal cases against him and it is for the employer to
consider the consequences of the criminal cases but the candidates is under
obligation to truthfully disclose the criminal cases. So far as the appointment
on the post of Law Clerk on contractual basis and thereafter as Translator is
concerned, it is argued that the said posts bear no comparison to the
post of Civil Judge, and it is not fair on the part of the petitioner to compare
the said two posts.
12. Learned senior counsel for the High Court further stated that so
far as the selection of the petitioner as Law Clerk is concerned, in that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
6 WP-10408-2025
selection the petitioner had suppressed details of criminal antecedents and his
service were terminated on 11.10.2018 being no longer required. It is further
argued that the petitioner had subsequently made a representation to Hon'ble
the Chief Justice which was placed before the Full Court meeting dated
13.02.2025 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Full
Court. Therefore, on these grounds it is argued that the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief, having suppressed the criminal antecedents in the
application forms.
13. Heard.
14. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had
suppressed the criminal antecedents in his application form and in the
column relating to disclosure of criminal antecedents he had written in Hindi
"अ यो य" (not applicable).
15. The Administrative Committee while rejecting the candidature of
the petitioner had made the following consideration:-
"2. Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari (S.C.) merit no. 138 .
As per the character verification report submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, Panna in crime no, 24 / 2008 under
section 379 of Indian Penal Code and crime no. 38 / 2008 under
section 379 of Indian Penal Code were registered at Police
Station, Gunaur District Panna against him and challan no. 29 /
2008 dt. 24.04.2008 and 30 / 2008 dt. 24.04.2008 were presented
in the Court. In both the criminal cases he has been acquitted.
The Committee considered the matter of candidate Mukesh
Kumar Chaudhari. While submitting the online application form,
application form for Main Exam, Attestation form and Personal
Bio-data form he did not disclose the fact of registration of crime
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
7 WP-10408-2025
against him, whereas it was mandatory for him to disclose his
criminal antecedents. So it is clear that the candidate had
deliberately concealed material facts regarding registration of two
crimes at Police Station, Gunaur District Panna, both under
section 379 of I.P.C. against him.
In the advertisement of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry
Level) Exam-2021 dated 23.12.2021 under ख ड-अ क उपकं डका-तीन
अनहताएं मांक-4, it was mentioned as under:-"
"चार-अनहताएँ -
िन निल खत मामल म, उ लंघन करने वाले आवेदक का अिभयोजन
कया जा सकेगा और/या चयन के िलये उसक उ मीदवार िनर त क
जा सकेगी और/या उसे थायी प से म० ० उ च यायालय
ाराआयो जत क जाने वाली सम त भत याओं से वव जत कर
दया जाएगा:-
4 . चयन के कसी भी तर पर पर ा हे तु दये गये कसी भी
आवेदन / प /अनु माणन / द तावेज म, अस य जानकार द हो या
सारभूत जानकार िछपाई हो, या"
In violation of the specific instructions as mentioned in the
advertisement, the candidate did not disclose and had suppressed a
material fact regarding registration of the crime in the online
application form, application form for Main Exam, Attestation
form and Personal Bio-data form. A three Judge Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of lndia and
Others(2016) 8 SCC 47], considered the question of suppression
of facts and appointment of a candidate to the civil post. Hon'ble
the Supreme Court held as under :-
"30. 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... .....
xx xx xx
32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain
information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it
correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
8 WP-10408-2025
information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or
cancellation or candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a
criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is
pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing
|such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction
ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not
supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. in such a case non-
disclosure or submitting false information would assume
significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to
cancel candidature or to terminate se
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogeeta Chandra
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anpr., Petition(s) for Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).4860-4861/2019, considered the
matter of appellant, who was Seeking appointment as a judicial
officer because on the ground of suppression of facts and not
disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form, her
appointment was cancelled by the Full Court of the High Court.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:-
"6.......The post which was applied by the appellant was
a very important post of judicial officer and therefore, it
was expected of a person who applied for the judicial
officer to disclose the true and correct facts and give
full particulars as asked in the application form. If in
the application form itself, she has not stated the true
and correct facts and suppressed the material facts,
what further things can be expected from her after she
was appointed as a Judicial officer."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Radhakrishnan
Vs. Director General of Police and Others (2008) | SCC 660,
considered the matter of appellant, who was intending to obtain
appointment in a uniformed service. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
held asunder :-
"13. in the instant case, indisputably, the appellant
had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature,
we are of opinion that question of exercising an
equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.
"A Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the
case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of M.P. and Another
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
9 WP-10408-2025
2018 (2) M.P.L.J. 419, has held asunder :-
"28. Thus, the expectations from a Judicial Officer
are of much higher standard There cannot be any
compromise in respect of rectitude, honesty and
integrity of a candidate who seeks appointment as Civil
Judge. The personal conduct of a candidate to be
appointed as Judicial Officer has to be free from any
taint. The same must be in tune with the highest
standard of a propriety and probity. The standard of
conduct is higher than that expected of an ordinary
citizen and also higher than that expected of a
professional in law as well.
In view of the conduct of deliberate suppression of material
fact regarding registration of crime by the candidate, it is resolved
not to recommend Shri Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari for
appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry
Level).
16. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation of the
Administrative Committee of the High Court, the State Government rejected
the candidature of the petitioner by order Annexure P/1.
17. After rejection, order Annexure P/1 was communicated to the
petitioner, he made a representation of the High Court and the said
representation has been turned down as per Full Court Meeting dated
13.02.2025. The consideration on the case of the petitioner was in the
following terms by Full Court:-
"SUB NO.17.
Consideration on matter relating to representation,
dated28.11.2024 of Shri Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari, Junior
Judicial Translator, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur for
providing appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior
Division(Entry Level).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
10 WP-10408-2025
Discussed and resolved that Shri Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari has
suppressed the material fact and also changed his name from Shri
Mukesh Kumar Verma to Shri Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari even
also suppressed the criminal antecedents, therefore the resolution
passed by the Administrative Committee (M.P. Judicial Service)
in its meeting held on 05.09.2023 stands reiterated. Accordingly
his representation for appointment to the post of Civil Judge,
Junior Division (Entry Level) stands rejected"
18. The petitioner had not only suppressed the criminal antecedents but
also changes his surname from Mukesh Kumar "Verma" to Mukesh Kumar
"Choudhary" because earlier he applied for the post of Law Clerk with the
name of Mukesh Kumar "Verma" and in the earlier selection for the post of
Civil Judge Class-II, he had applied with the name of Mukesh Kumar
"Verma" and disclosed the criminal antecedents. However, when he applied
in response to advertisement for Civil Judge Junior Division in the year 2021
he used the name of Mukesh Kumar "Choudhary" in place of Mukesh
Kumar "Verma" and further he did not disclose the criminal antecedents.
19. It was contended by the petitioner that since his caste certificate
bears the name Mukesh Kumar Choudhary, hence subsequently he has got
his surname changed in the mark-sheet so as to avoid discrepancies in the
surname. However, the fact remains that petitioner earlier used to apply by
using the nameMukesh Kumar "Verma" and mark-sheet also used to bear the
name of Mukesh Kumar "Verma" but this time he used the name as Mukesh
Kumar "Choudhary".
20. The suppression was explained by the petitioner on the ground
that since the criminal cases were against some other Mukesh and not the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
11 WP-10408-2025
present petitioner, therefore, he had no occasion to disclose the said criminal
antecedents and once he was not accused person of the said cases, he was not
under obligation to disclose the criminal antecedents of some other person
and was only under obligation to disclose the antecedents of himself. It was
also argued that in the judgements of acquittal, the address of accused is
written as Village "Pipariya", wile he is resident of village "Pipariya Don".
21. Looking to the aforesaid argument, on 29.04.2025 this court
passed an order calling for record of the said two criminal cases and also
directed the SHO of police station concerned to keep ready the material with
him. Pursuant to the order dated 29.05.2025, the SHO, Gunnaur, District
Panna is present with record. This Court perused the above record and
returned to Shri Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate in presence of SHO,
Gunnaur, District Panna.
22. Upon perusal of the crime register, it is evident that the address
of the accused is written as Village Pipariya Don.
23. It was argued by the petitioner that in the judgment of criminal
case No. 422/2008 the accused is Mukesh S/o Jeevanlal R/o Village
Pipariya, Police Station Pawai District Panna while in criminal case No.
423/2008 the accused is Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Jeevanlal Choudhary
R/O Village Pipariya, Police Station Pawai District Panna. It was vehemently
argued that since the village of the petitioner is Pipariya Don, therefore, he
cannot be said to be accused person in these two cases because in these two
cases the address of the accused is village Pipariya and not Pipariya Don and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
12 WP-10408-2025
that it appears that the petitioner is being put to adversityfor the act of some
other accused person who may be having identical name and father's name.
24. However, upon perusal of the crime register as noted above, it is
clear that in the crime register the address of the accused is mentioned as
Pipariya Don. Therefore, this argument of the petitioner has no force.
25. The SHO further informed that no other material is available in
the police Station because the case papers in original were submitted to the
trial court alongwith chargesheet. So far as the Trial Court record is
concerned, an intimation has been received from the Principal District Judge,
Panna dated 06.05.2025 that the case files of acquittal in two cases have been
destroyed by the Court long ago in usual course and are no longer available.
26. At this stage this Court, at instance of the petitioner, cannot
conduct a roving enquiry into the question whether it was the petitioner who
was the accused person in the said two criminal cases. However, it is a fact
that when the same person i.e. petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge
Class-II in the year 2016 he duly disclosed the said two criminal cases in the
application form which is available at page 51 of the petition. When the same
person (petitioner) applied for the post of Hardware Technician in the High
Court again he disclosed the said two criminal cases and the application form
is available at page 54 of the petition.
27. Once the petitioner had been disclosing the said two criminal
cases again and again, as also duly admitted by him in the petition, now it is
not open for the petitioner to argue that he was not accused person in the said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
13 WP-10408-2025
two criminal cases and some other persons having identical name and father's
name was the actual accused person. If the petitioner was not the accused
person in the said two criminal cases, there was no occasion for him to have
disclosed the said two offences at different points of time while applying for
different positions in the High Court. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that he was not the accused person in the said two criminal cases
deserves to be and is hereby rejected.
28. When the candidature was rejected in response to advertisement
of the year 2016 for the post of Civil Judge Class-II, the petitioner had filed
W.P. No. 18718/2018 which was dismissed on merits by Division Bench of
this Court on 03.10.2018 and the order was confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No. 16906-16907 of 2019. The petitioner did
not raise any plea that he was not the accused person in the said two criminal
case but to the contrary there was the plea that since he has been acquitted
for the said two offences, therefore, he deserves to be declared qualified to
compete in the examination and his candidature ought not to have been
rejected. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has suppressed the criminal
antecedents in the criminal cases and this case, to adjudge the suitability of
the petitioner, has to be looked into from the angle of suppression of criminal
antecedents. The petitioner relied on various judgments more particularly in
the case of Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. , (2024) 5 SCC 264, Umesh
Chandra Yadav v. Northern Railway , (2022) 14 SCC 244, Kamal Nayan
Mishra v. State of M.P. , (2010) 2 SCC 169, and in the case of State of W.B.
v. Mitul Kumar Jana , (2023) 14 SCC 719 to contend that the nature of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
14 WP-10408-2025
offences can be looked into and the circumstances surrounding to which
suppression has been made can be looked into. However, the present case is
a case of willful suppression of a legally trained candidate who is getting
selected to the post of Civil Judge.
29. Parity was claimed from the case of one Apoorva Pathak by
placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case
o f Apoorva Pathak vs. High Court of M.P. and another 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1445, wherein the Supreme Court has allowed the writ petition of the
candidate. However, the said case involved a trivial offence and proceeds on
the ground that the prosecution was under Section 289 I.P.C. relating to pet
dog of the candidate biting a neighbour, and for which she was acquitted in
the year 2018 and this fact had been truthfully disclosed in the attestation
form. This case was also not a case of suppression of antecedents.
30. The petitioner in the present case belonged to judicial service and
there was suppression of material information in the attestation form. In the
case of Apoorva Pathak v. High Court of M.P. , (2019) 4 MP LJ 400 , it has
been held by the Division Bench that the information to be given by the
candidate must be true and there should be no suppression or false supply of
the requisite information and in a case of deliberate suppression of fact, it
would in itself assume significance and employer may pass appropriate order
cancelling candidature for terminating services of the candidate. The
Division Bench has held as under:-
21. In view of the obtaining factual matrix of the present case and
the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the authorities relied upon by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
15 WP-10408-2025
the learned counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance
to the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner in the
cases of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and Dhawal Singh (supra) were
considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case
o f Avtar Singh (supra) and after considering various decisions, the
larger Bench in a reference made to it has observed that the
information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction,
acquittal, 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 supply of the requisite information. It has also observed that 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.
22. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh
Pawar v. High Court of M.P. , (2018) 2 MP LJ 419 wherein the
decision of another Division Bench of this Court granting relief and
benefit to a petitioner who had been acquitted on the basis of a
compromise has been set aside. In the case of Union Territory,
Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar, 2018 MPLJ Online
(S.C.) 41 : (2018) 1 SCC 797 the Apex Court held that mere acquittal
in a criminal case does not confer any right on an individual to claim
employment and in spite of such acquittal the employer has a right to
take into consideration all aspects and reject the claim of the applicant
on this ground.
25. In the light of the aforesaid facts and enunciation of law, in the
present case the employer has taken into consideration the specific
language of clause 14 of the attestation form and the fact that the said
attestation form was submitted on 18-4-2018 after execution of
personal bond on 17-3-2018, but the said fact was not disclosed in the
form. Further, the petitioner submitted an affidavit on 19-4-2018
before the respondents, but in the said affidavit also she did not
disclose the aforesaid registration of crime, arrest and execution of
personal bond by her. The employer has taken into consideration the
conduct of the petitioner of non-disclosure and suppression in the
attestation form, irrespective of the nature of allegations against the
candidate which may be of petty nature. The conduct of a candidate of
suppression or misrepresentation of information in the attestation form
itself amounts to moral turpitude. The petitioner was a candidate to be
recruited to judicial service and in such appointment, a candidate must
be of impeccable character and integrity."
The said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, however, in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
16 WP-10408-2025
subsequent selection when the same candidate truthfully disclosed her
criminal antecedents, then for subsequent selection her candidature was
upheld by the Supreme Court in Apoorva Pathak vs. High Court of M.P. and
another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1445 .
31. In the case of State of W.B. v. S.K. Nazrul Islam , (2011) 10 SCC
184 , even in the cases of Constables, it has been held by the Supreme Court
that as the candidate has concealed the fact that he was involved in a criminal
case and therefore, upheld the rejection of candidature. A similar view was
taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P.
through its Principal Secretary vs. Dinesh Singh Parihar, 2015 SCC OnLine
MP 7526by holding as under:-
"6. Considering the above submissions, the impugned order of the
Writ Court and considering the case of Mehar Singh (supra), we find
that in the matter of Mehar Singh Apex Court had come down heavily
regarding the fact that the police force is a disciplined post and it
shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and
public order in the society. It is clear that a candidate to be recruited to
the police service must be worthy of candidature 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 is the
appointing authority. There is no allegation of mala-fides against the
person taking the said decision nor is the decision 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. In the present
case the appellants/State having alleged concealment regarding the
registration of offence by the respondent/petitioner and hence the
impugned order of cancellation of his candidature is passed. Whereas
the learned Writ Court in the present case has considered that there
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
17 WP-10408-2025
was provision for an approval of the Inspector General of Police under
Regulation 54 of the M.P. Manual and Regulations even when a
candidate had been convicted. In this aspect, we find that the appeal
needs to be allowed. The discretion is available to the appellants/State
regarding concealment/suppression; and parity cannot be claimed in
the present case with Mehar Singh (supra). Hence, the order of learned
Court is set aside and the petition of the petitioner is dismissed."
The aforesaid case was the case of Constable in police force whereas
the present case is one of appointment in judicial service.
32. Very recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogeeta
Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 142has upheld the termination of services of a judicial officer for not
disclosing pendency of criminal case at the time of making application. The
Supreme Court noted that subsequent closure of criminal cases is immaterial
when the candidate has made dishonest suppression. The Supreme Court has
held as under:-
"6. In the application form, the applicant, who, as such, applied for
the post of a judicial officer was required to disclose certain facts,
more particularly, the facts stated in Clause 18 of the Application
Form and non-disclosure of true facts and not only that but saying
"No" can certainly be said to be suppression of material facts. It was
immaterial whether there was a closure report or acquittal or
conviction. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the particulars
which were asked, whether "did you ever figure as an accused or a
complainant in any criminal case? If so, give particulars with result."
Therefore, the factum of figuring the name either as an accused or a
complainant in any criminal case was required to be disclosed with
full particulars and with result. Therefore, the appellant cannot take
the plea and/or defence that as a Closure Report was filed in the
complaint in which she was the accused, the same was not required
to be disclosed. On the basis of the nature of the allegations in the
complaint either as an accused or a complainant, it is ultimately for
the employer to take a conscious decision whether to appoint such a
person or not. What could be considered while actually appointing a
person depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it
is ultimately for the employer to take a conscious decision. The post
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
18 WP-10408-2025
which was applied by the appellant was a vey important post of
judicial officer and therefore, it was expected of a person who
applied for the judicial officer to disclose the true and correct facts
and give full particulars as asked in the application form. If in the
application form itself, she has not stated the true and correct facts
and suppressed the material facts, what further things can be
expected from her after she was appointed as a judicial officer.
7. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
it appears that it was the case on behalf of the appellant that the
services of the appellant could not be put to an end without holding
the departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of
India. However, it is required to be noted that the termination was
not on the ground of any misconduct. It was the case of cancellation
of the appointment on not disclosing the true and correct facts in the
application form. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court,
there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry under
Article 311 of the Constitution of India."
In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court went on to hold that in
such cases even departmental enquiry is not essential. However, in the
present case, a regular departmental enquiry has indeed been conducted.
33. The Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India,
(2016) 8 SCC 471 has held in para 38.7 that in case of deliberate suppression
of facts with respect to criminal cases such false information by itself will
assume significance and employer may pass appropriate order cancelling
candidature for terminating services of the person. The Supreme Court even
went on to hold that even when a pendency of criminal case was not known
to the candidate at the time of filling of form, still it may have adverse impact
and the appointing authority would be free to take decision after considering
the seriousness of the crime. We note that the suppression of cases of trivial
nature may only be overlooked and that too looking to the nature of post and
duties. This will obviously not apply where the post in question is an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
19 WP-10408-2025
important or sensitive post like Judicial Officer, requiring highest standards
of character and integrity and offences involving moral turpitude. In the said
case, the Supreme Court 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
20 WP-10408-2025
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 vague.
Only such information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22988
21 WP-10408-2025
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."
34. In view of the aforesaid as it is the case of suppression of
criminal antecedents by a candidate who applied for the post of Judicial
services, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The rejection of the
candidature of the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby upheld.
35. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
MISHRA
