Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
1 WP-16207-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16207 of 2023
GAURAV SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Brijesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Mishra - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 25.04.2023, (Annexure P/1)
whereby his candidature for appointment on the post of Constable (G.D.) has
been cancelled by the respondents because of his involvement in a criminal
case.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that pursuant to the
advertisement issued by respondent-department through Professional
Examination Board in 2020 inviting applications for various posts, the
petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable (G.D.). He
successfully cleared the examination and thereafter, he submitted the
declaration form wherein he disclosed about a criminal case registered
against him for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC. He
also informed that he has been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case by the
judgment, dated 23.02.2021, (Annexure P/6) passed by Judicial Magistrate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
2 WP-16207-2023
First Class, Gwalior.
3. The matter was thereafter placed before the Screening Committee in
its meeting held on 14.03.2023. The Screening Committee opined that the
petitioner was involved in a criminal case for serious offences against a
woman. The Committee found him unsuitable for appointment on the post of
Constable. Accordingly, his candidature has been cancelled by the
respondent no.4 vide impugned order. The petitioner has filed the present
writ petition challenging the aforesaid order.
4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned
order submitted that the petitioner's candidature has been illegally cancelled
without considering the facts of the case. It is his submission that the
candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled solely because he was
involved in the criminal case without considering the fact that he has been
acquitted in the criminal case by the judgment of the Court. He also
submitted that there is no iota of material available against the petitioner to
even remotely suggest his involvement in the case. Referring to the statement
of petitioner's wife (complainant) in the criminal case, learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner's wife herself did not support the prosecution
story. He thus submitted that the petitioner deserves to be appointed on the
post in question. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed
reliance upon Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ahsan
Khan Mansuri Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.13772 of 2023).
5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State
supported the impugned action and submitted that the petitioner is aspiring
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
3 WP-16207-2023
for appointment on the post of Constable which is a disciplined force and the
candidate for such post is required to have clean record. It is her submission
that the Screening Committee was well within its jurisdiction to have
considered the petitioner's suitability for the post keeping in view his
involvement in the criminal case. She also submitted that the offence on
which the petitioner got involved was serious enough which shows the
criminal mentality of the petitioner. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of
the writ petition.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is profitable to refer to
the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rohit
Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in W.A. No.7/2020 wherein the
Division Bench opined that while considering the candidature of a candidate,
the Screening Committee is required to consider the nature of allegations,
overt act alleged against the candidate, criminal antecedents of the candidate
and his overall reputation in the society. The observations made by the
Division Bench in para - 12 & 13 being relevant are reproduced as under:
"12. Thus what comes out loud and clear from the above
discussion is that appointing authority while assessing
suitability of a candidate to enter public employment has a
heavy responsibility of considering lot many factors. Mere
registration of offence which according to the appointing
authority involves moral turpitude especially when the Court
of competent jurisdiction has not pronounced judgment on
merits, is not per se good enough to declare a candidate unfit
for public employment.
12.1 Employer in discharge of this onerous responsibility is
required to inter alia consider following factors:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
4 WP-16207-2023
(i) The nature of allegations;
(ii) Overt act alleged against candidate;
(iii) Whether the allegations are solely against individual
candidate or have been alleged with the aid of section 34/149
of IPC.
(iv) The criminal antecedents of the candidate;
(v) Overall reputation of the candidate in his locality/society
etc.
13. The aforesaid factors are illustrative and not exhaustive.
There can be other relevant factors which the Competent
Authority can consider. The concern of this Court is that it is
seen time and again that the appointing authorities are not
discharging this onerous duty while considering candidature
of persons seeking public employment. The appointing
authority often adopts cursory and perfunctory approach. The
appointing authority ought to remember that it is dealing with
prospects of employment of a citizen of the country, which if
not dealt with appropriately in accordance with the rule of
law, can jeopardize the entire future of a candidate and render
her/him demoralized."
8. The Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v/s Union of India &
Others [Civil Appeal No.3574 of 2022 ] has also considered the similar issue.
It has been held that all the matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and the
degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities, must be
exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances into
consideration, including the nature and type of lapse. Para - 16 of the said
judgment is reproduced below:
"16. The judgment relied upon by the respondent Rajasthan
Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil
Kanwariya may not be of any assistance for the reason that it
was a case where the respondent employee before submitting
application pursuant to the advertisement inviting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
5 WP-16207-2023
applications was convicted by the competent Court of
jurisdiction and this fact was not disclosed by him while
filling his application form and that was the reason favoured
upon the Court while upholding action of the authority in
passing the order of termination which was impugned in the
proceedings. We have already quoted paragraph 38 of the
judgment by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar
Singh (supra) and in the context of the factual background of
the present case applied the said principles. One
distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that the criminal
complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post
submission of the application form. We have also taken into
account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal
case and that the matter was of trivial nature not involving
moral turpitude. Further, the proceedings had ended in a
clean acquittal. As is clear from paragraph 38 in Avtar Singh
(supra), all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a
degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities,
must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts
and circumstances into consideration, including the nature
and type of lapse."
9. In view of the aforesaid, if the facts of the present case are seen, the
wife/complainant herself did not state against the petitioner. It is worth
mentioning here that the complainant was the only eye-witness to the
incident and she herself has not stated anything against the petitioner. Thus, it
cannot be said that there was any material against the petitioner so as to hold
him guilty of the act alleged. As per the submissions made by petitioner's
counsel, the complainant is happily residing with the petitioner till date. The
petitioner was honorably acquitted in the criminal case. Further, when a
candidate is acquitted in criminal case without giving benefit of doubt, he
should be found suitable for appointment in Government service. The
Screening Committee was required to consider the facts in totality while
taking a decision with regard to petitioner's suitability for appointment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
6 WP-16207-2023
However, a bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that except by
observing that the offence alleged against the petitioner was a serious one.
No consideration is made so far as the facts of the case are concerned.
10. As has been held by Courts many a times, mere allegation against
the candidate would not be sufficient to hold him unsuitable for appointment.
The authority was required to meticulously appreciate the facts of the case
and it is only when there is some material before the authority against the
candidate, he could have been held unsuitable. From perusal of impugned
order, it is evident that the authority has failed to even examine the facts of
the case and was led away with the fact that offence alleged against the
petitioner was serious one.
11. The learned Government Advocate submitted that employer is
having a right to consider the candidature of a candidate for appointment in
Government service. This discretion of employer can never be doubted,
however, this Court can examine the manner in which the discretion is
exercised by the authority. If the facts of the present case are seen, learned
Trial Court has acquitted the petitioner. Thus, he could not have been held
unsuitably for appointment unless there is any material in support thereof.
12. At this stage, it is profitable to refer Apex Court judgment
rendered in the case of Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra &
others reported in (2019)17 SCC 696 . It was a case where the Apex Court
was considering denial of appointment to the petitioner in judicial services.
The Apex Court held in para 5 to 9 as under :
"5 . Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our
country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants
for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
7 WP-16207-2023
invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the
candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability,
irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very
different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that
may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial
service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical
incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial
service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every
individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past
and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past
conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the
neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much
will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.
6. That the expression "moral turpitude" is not capable of precise
definition was considered in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana
[Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, opining : (SCC p. 21, para 12)
"12. "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as
also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base,
vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity."
7. The appellant by dint of hard academic labour was successful at
the competitive examination held on 16-8-2009 and after viva
voce was selected and recommended for appointment by the
Maharashtra Public Service Commission on 14-10-2009. In his
attestation form, he had duly disclosed his prosecution and
acquittal. Mere disclosure in an appropriate case may not be
sufficient to hold for suitability in employment. Nonetheless the
nature of allegations and the conduct in the facts of a case would
certainly be a relevant factor. While others so recommended came
to be appointed, the selection of the appellant was annulled on 4-
6-2010 in view of the character verification report of the police.
8 . It is an undisputed fact that one Shri Sudhir Gulabrao Barde,
who had been acquitted on 24-11-2009 in Case No. 3022 of 2007
under Sections 294, 504 and 34 IPC, has been appointed. We are
not convinced, that in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the appellant could be discriminated and denied appointment
arbitrarily when both the appointments were in judicial service, by
the same selection procedure, of persons who faced criminal
prosecutions and were acquitted. The distinction sought to be
drawn by the respondents, that the former was not involved in a
case of moral turpitude does not leave us convinced. In Joginder
Singh, it was observed as follows : (SCC pp. 383-84, para 25)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
8 WP-16207-2023
"25. Further, apart from a small dent in the name of this criminal
case in which he has been honourably acquitted, there is no other
material on record to indicate that the antecedents or the conduct
of the appellant was not up to the mark to appoint him to the
post."
9. In the present proceedings, on 23-3-2018, this Court had called
for a confidential report of the character verification as also the
antecedents of the appellant as on this date. The report received
reveals that except for the criminal case under reference in which
he has been acquitted, the appellant has a clean record and there is
no adverse material against him to deny him the fruits of his
academic labour in a competitive selection for the post of a
judicial officer. In our opinion, no reasonable person on the basis
of the materials placed before us can come to the conclusion that
the antecedents and character of the appellant are such that he is
unfit to be appointed as a judicial officer. An alleged single
misadventure or misdemeanour of the present nature, if it can be
considered to be so, cannot be sufficient to deny appointment to
the appellant when he has on all other aspects and parameters been
found to be fit for appointment. The law is well settled in this
regard in Avtar Singh v. Union of India [Avtar Singh v. Union of
India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] . If
empanelment creates no right to appointment, equally there can be
no arbitrary denial of appointment after empanelment." The facts
of the present case are somewhat similar to the facts of the case
before Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Imran (Supra).
13. In the case in hand, the petitioner had disclosed the factum of the
criminal case registered against him in the declaration form. He has also
brought on record before the authorities, the judgment passed in the criminal
case. The Screening Committee was, therefore, required to record reasons for
unsuitability of petitioner despite having been acquitted in criminal case.
However, except implication of petitioner in criminal case, nothing has been
stated in the impugned order. The Screening Committee/Competent
Authority could have got his character verified, could have examined the
wife/complainant about the conduct of petitioner. However, the Committee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26437
9 WP-16207-2023
has failed to discharge its onerous duty while considering petitioner's
suitability for appointment.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order, dated 25.04.2023, is
set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Screening Committee for
reconsideration of the petitioner's case keeping in view the observations
made herein-above. Let the decision in this regard to be taken within a period
of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
