Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50471
1 WA-1009-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1009 of 2024
DEVENDRA SINGH THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shankar Dayal Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajvardhan Datt Parhraha - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant who is
aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in W.P. No.22555/2019 by
learned Single Bench of this Court.
2. The case of the appellant is that, he applied for a job of a Constable in
the Special Armed Force (S.A.F.) under Madhya Pradesh Police. In that, he
had disclosed that he was implicated in a criminal case. The case was inter
alia under the provisions of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. Learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was acquitted by the
learned Trial Court. The order of the Trial Court convicted two other persons
in the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50471
2 WA-1009-2024
3. The appellant was not appointed on account of this criminal case in
which he was involved. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that he has being given a clean acquittal, and that despite the
same, he was not considered fit to be appointed on the said post. The
impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Bench has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in "Union of India and others Vs
Methu Meda [(2022) 1 SCC 1]" and it has specifically referred to paragraphs
20 and 21 of the said judgment, wherein the Supreme Court has observed
that a person having criminal antecedents, would not be fit to join the Police
Force, and that the employer, had the right to consider the nature of acquittal.
In paragraph 21 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that it is trite
law that where a person is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt
involving an offence of moral turpitude because the witnesses had turned
hostile, the same would not entitle him to employment and that too in a
disciplined force.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Rajesh Vs. Directorate
General Sashastra Seema Bal and Another" passed in W.P. (C)
No.6278/2022. However, the same would not be applicable in the present
case as that case is related to non-disclosure of the criminal case by the
petitioner to the employer. In this particular case, the disclosure has been
made, but yet, the employer has found the appellant not suitable for
appointment to the S.A.F.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has drawn the attention
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50471
3 WA-1009-2024
of this Court to the judgment dated 19.06.2023 passed by a Coordinate
Bench in W.A. No.741/2023, where according to the learned counsel for the
respondent, in a near identical case, the appellant's case was rejected by this
Court holding that appointment to a disciplined force is the prerogative of the
employer. In that case, it was the State that had gone upon in appeal to the
Coordinate Bench as the respondent in that case was granted the benefit by
the learned Single Bench. The Coordinate Bench allowing the appeal, held
that whether the respondent in that case was entitled for grant of appointment
to the post of Constable (Driver) had to be seen in the backdrop of the well
settled preposition that a candidate applying for recruitment in the Police
Force should be of unimpeachable character and integrity, as it shoulders a
great responsibility of maintaining law and public order in the society.
Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench relied on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in "Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs.
Pradeep Kumar and another [(2018) 1 SCC 797] where the Supreme Court
held that acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the
candidate on the post concerned, and that the acquittal and discharge of a
person cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or has no
criminal antecedents. Thereafter, in paragraph 10, the Coordinate Bench after
analyzing the law laid down in the judgments of the Supreme Court, held in
that case that the employer has a right to consider the candidature of the
respondent, and the mere subsequent acquittal in the criminal case, will not
automatically entitle the candidate to seek appointment to the post in
question. It further held that the employer has to consider the same, bearing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50471
4 WA-1009-2024
in mind the criminal antecedents, and thereafter, deciding whether the
respondent would fit in the category or not, would always be the discretion
of the employer.
6. In this particular case, a bare perusal of the judgment passed by the
learned Trial Court, discloses that the charge against the appellant herein was
under the Gambling Act and the offences are involving moral turpitude. It is
the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein was present at the scene
of occurence, but escaped under the cover of darkness when the power was
switched off at the place where the gambling was in progress. It is also
necessary to mention here that the learned Trial Court has recorded that one
of the two seizure witnesses had expired and the other had turned hostile and
did not prove the seizure. It is also necessary to mention here that two other
persons were convicted in this case, and in paragraph 12 of the judgment
passed by the learned Trial Court, it was held that the applicant and other co-
accused were not present at the scene of ocurrence.
7. This, by itself, would mean the appellant was desirable and ought to
have been held so by the employer and given appointment in the Special
Armed Force. It is common knowledge, that in a criminal trial, the person
accused of a charge is not acquitted because he is found innocent but because
the prosecution has not adduced such evidence that the court could hold him
guilty. The situation may have been different, where in the course of the trial
and in passing the order the Trial Court comes to an inescapable inference
that a particular accused has falsely implicated by the prosecution which may
form relevant consideration by the appointing authority, whether or not, a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50471
5 WA-1009-2024
person should be given appointment to a disciplined force. However, where
such a finding is conspicuous by its absence in the Trial Court order, the
inference is one of the benefit of doubt granted to the appellant in view of
evidence adduced by the prosecution not going to the extent of proving his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where the Trial Court arrives at a finding of
false implication of an accused by the Police and an adjudication of his
innocence, in such a situation, the appointing authority may be justified in
considering such an accused person fit for employment, but not otherwise.
8. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity much less
a perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench, the
appeal is dismissed.
9. The Appeal stands dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shivani
