Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Baish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
1 WP-12919-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 8 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12919 of 2023
KULDEEP BAISH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Monika Mishra - PL for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated
27/4/2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby, his candidature for the post of
Constable has been cancelled by the respondent no.4 on account of his
involvement in the criminal case.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
participated in the recruitment process for the post of Constable in the year
2020. He successfully cleared the written test and the interview and was thus
allotted District Balaghat for posting. Before his appointment, the petitioner
submitted the attestation form, wherein, he disclosed information about a
criminal case registered against him in Police Station Narwar, District
Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 461, 471 of IPC
and Section 3 & 4 of M.P. Examination Act. He also disclosed that the
aforesaid criminal case has resulted in his acquittal vide judgment dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
2 WP-12919-2023
23/8/2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District
Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 98/2018.
3. The matter was thereafter placed before the Screening Committee in
its meeting held on 14/3/2023. The Screening Committee held the petitioner
not suitable for appointment on the post of Constable in view of the fact that
the offence alleged against him involves moral turpitude. Accordingly, the
impugned order was passed by respondent no.4 on 27/4/2023, thereby,
informing the petitioner about cancellation of his candidature for
appointment. Being aggrieved by this order, petitioner has filed instant
petition.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner, challenging the impugned order,
submitted that the Screening Committee has taken the decision without
proper appreciation of facts. The impugned order thus suffers from the defect
of non-application of mind. He submitted that there was no evidence against
the petitioner, as a result of which, he was honourably acquitted by the Trial
Court in the criminal case. He also submitted that apart from the petitioner's
false implication in the aforesaid case, there was no criminal antecedents and
this important fact escaped consideration of the Screening Committee. The
learned counsel also submitted that the respondents failed to follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of
India reported in (2016)8 SCC 471. He also placed reliance upon the Apex
Court judgment in the case of Anil Bhardwaj Vs. Hon'ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2021)13 SCC 323. He also placed
reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rohit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
3 WP-12919-2023
Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.A. No.7/2020).
5. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned
order and submitted that the petitioner was tried for serious offences
involving moral turpitude and, therefore, in accordance with the guidelines
issued by the General Administration Department vide circular dated
24/7/2018, petitioner was rightly found unsuitable for appointment. She
further submitted that it was alleged against the petitioner that he
fraudulently appeared for examination in place of another student and when
caught, ran away from the examination centre. The act alleged against the
petitioner was such which disentitles him from appointment on the post of
Constable, which is a part of disciplined force. She also submitted that the act
of petitioner shows total disrespect for law of the land and therefore, the
Screening Committee was justified in finding him unsuitable for
appointment. The learned counsel for the State placed reliance upon the
Apex Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs.
Mehar Singh reported in (2013)7 SCC 85, State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Parvez
Khan reported in (2015)2 SCC 591 and U nion Territory, Chandigarh
Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar reported in (2018)1 SCC 797. She
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
7. Before entering into the merits of the case, the law with regard to
judging the suitability of a candidate on account of his implication in
criminal case needs to be examined. The similar issue was considered by
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rohit Singh Raghuvanshi (supra).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
4 WP-12919-2023
This Court held in paragraph no.12 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:-
(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. "
8. Similar issue was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra) and various guidelines were given by the Apex Court. The
guideline issued in para 38.4.3 is relevant for purpose of this case and thus,
same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"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."
9 . Again, the issue was considered by the Apex Court in the case of
Anil Bhardwaj (supra) , wherein, in para 27 & 28, the Court held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
5 WP-12919-2023
"27. The Guidelines dated 5-6-2003 have been issued by the
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the subject "regarding issuing
of new guidelines for character verification". Para 6 which has
been relied on by the counsel for the appellant is regarding
Column 12 of the attestation form. It is useful to extract Para 6 and
clause (viii) which are as follows:
"6. Column 12 of the attestation form filled for character
verification by selected candidates for government service,
criminal background, judicial case and the information about
acquittal or conviction in it, wilfully or erroneously or ignorantly
kept vacant subject to qualification for appointment in
government service taking into consideration the policy as per
rules made by the State Government with immediate effect
decisions have been taken.
(i)-(vii) * * *
(viii) On the acquittal on merit of the case by the Hon'ble
Court, the candidate will be eligible for government service."
28. Clause (viii) on which the reliance is placed contemplates that
the candidate who has been acquitted on merit by the court will be
eligible for the government service. The aforesaid contemplation
relates to at the time of character verification. Thus, at the time of
character verification, if a candidate is found to be acquitted on
merits by the court, the candidate shall be treated to be eligible for
government service. The above clause (viii) as quoted above
cannot come to the rescue of the appellant who at the time of
character verification or at the time of consideration of the case of
the appellant by the Committee on 18-7-2018 had not been
acquitted. Had the appellant in Column 12 had mentioned about
the acquittal or at the time of character verification it was found
that the candidate has been acquitted on merit by the Court, Para
6(viii) would have been attracted but in the present case the said
clause is not attracted since at the time of character verification the
appellant had not been acquitted and he was acquitted after more
than a year from rejection of his candidature."
10. Considering the aforesaid legal proposition, no doubt, the
Screening Committee was entitled to judge the suitability of a candidate.
However, while considering such suitability, it was required to see the nature
of allegations levelled against the candidate, the overt act alleged against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
6 WP-12919-2023
him, the criminal antecedents of the candidate and his overall reputation in
the society. Further, a perusal of the findings recorded by Trial Court in
criminal case, it is evident that the petitioner has been acquitted of criminal
charges on merits and it is not an acquittal by giving him benefit of doubt.
Therefore, by virtue of Apex Court judgment in the case of Avtar Singh and
Anil Bharadwaj (supra), the Screening Committee was required to consider
petitioner's candidature vis-a-vis the nature of offence alleged, nature of his
acquittal and his antecedents. However, a bare perusal of impugned order
shows that this responsibility has not been discharged by the Screening
Committee.
11. A perusal of the impugned order, however, shows that except the
factum of petitioner's involvement in the criminal case, nothing else is
discussed. The Screening Committee appears to have been led away with the
fact that the offence alleged against the petitioner involves moral turpitude.
In para 4 of the impugned order, the respondent no.4 has recorded a positive
finding that petitioner has given examination in place of another student and
on being compared with admit card by the Invigilator, he ran away from the
examination centre. This finding, however, runs contrary to findings
recorded by learned Trial Court. No reason has been assigned by respondent
no.4 for recording conflicting finding.
12. If the facts of the criminal case are seen, it was alleged against the
petitioner that on 14/3/2018, in the examination centre at Govt. Girls Higher
Secondary School, Narwar, District Shivpuri, during the examination of
Class XII Physics Paper, the petitioner was giving examination in place of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
7 WP-12919-2023
co-accused Saurabh Yadav. It is also alleged that when the Invigilator
compared him with the admit card, the petitioner ran away from the
examination centre. It is also alleged that the petitioner was arrested by the
Police and was tried for the offences. If the entire factual scenario is seen,
one Tej Singh Jatav, Senior Teacher was the complainant. However,
complainant was not the eye witness and he lodged the complaint on the
incident being narrated to him by one Manoj Bhargava who was examined as
PW/4 in the trial. Further, Smt. Hemlata Dhanuk (PW/1) and Rajkumar
Jadon (PW/2) are stated to be Invigilators and were present in the
examination hall when the incident took place. Therefore, the statement of
these three witnesses is material for consideration.
1 3 . None of the aforesaid three witnesses, identified the petitioner
during their testimony in Court. The Trial Court has discussed about their
testimony in para 13, 15, 17 & 20 of the judgment and same are reproduced
hereunder:-
"13. तेजिसंह जाटव अ.सा.-3 ने ितपर ण के पद मांक 4 म यह
बताया है क वह यायालय म उप थत आरोपीगण को नह ं पहचानता
है तथा ितपर ण के पद मांक 6 म उ सा ी के ारा यह भी बताया
है क य द पुिलस वाल ने कसी गलत छा को पकड़ िलया हो, तो इसक
भी जानकार नह ं है । इस कार उ सा ी अपने यायालयीन कथन म
यह बताने तक असमथ रहा है क कस आरोपी के थान पर कौन
आरोपी पर ा म बैठा था तथा यह भी बताने म असमथ रहा है क य द
पुिलस ने कसी गलत य को पकड़ िलया हो, तो उसे जानकार नह ं
है ।
15. उ सा ी ने अपने कथन के पद मांक 2 म ह अिभयोजन के ारा
पूछने पर यह बताया है क वह नह ं बता सकता क सौरभ यादव क
जगह पर कौन पर ा दे रहा था। सा ी ने ितपर ण के पद मांक 4
म यह बताया है क वह आरोपीगण सौरभ तथा कुलद प को य गत
प से नह ं जानती है । य द उ आरोपीगण यायालय म उप थत भी
ह , तो वह उ ह नह ं पहचान सकती है एवं सा ी ने इसी पैरा म यह भी
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
8 WP-12919-2023
बताया है क रोल नंबर 281626089 के छा को कसके ारा उ र
पु तका द गई थी, आज नह ं बता सकती है । सा ी ने ितपर ण के
पद मांक 6 म यह बताया है क उसने घटना के संबंध म के ा य को
सूचना नह ं द थी, ब क वह दसू रे काम म य त हो गई थी सा ी ने
पुिलस कथन दश ड -1 के बी से बी भाग को पुिलस को बताने से इनकार
कर दया है ।
17. इसी संबंध म सा ी रामकुमार जादौन अ.सा.-2 ने अपने कथन म
बताया है क दनांक 14.03.2018 को वह पयवे क के प म हे मलता
धानुक के साथ कायरत था तथा रोल नंबर 281626089 पर बैठा पर ाथ
अचानक खड़ा हुआ एवं पर ा क से बाहर चला गया, जसक सूचना
हमने के ा य को द थी तथा उपरो अनु मांक सौरभ यादव का
था। उ सा ी को भी अिभयोजन के ारा प वरोधी घो षत कया गया
है । सा ी ने ितपर ण के पद मांक 4 म यह बताया है क वह
आरोपीगण सौरभ एवं कुलद प को नह ं जानता है य द वह यायालय म
खड़े भी हो, तो नह ं पहचान सकता है तथा ऐसा कोई भी द तावेज नह ं है
क रोल नंबर 281626089 सौरभ यादव का है ब क सा ी ने
ितपर ण के मांक 6 म यह तक बताया है क उसे पर ा के
प ात भी यह नह ं पता चल सका क सैारभ के थान पर कुलद प पर ा
दे रहा है । इस कार से उ सा ी के कथन के आधार पर भी मा इतना
मा णत होता है क घटना दनांक को अनु मांक 281626089 के
पर ाथ क पर ा थी, ले कन सा ी के कथन के आधार पर यह तक
मा णत नह ं होता है क उपरो अनु मांक आरोपी सौरभ यादव का था
तथा सौरभ यादव के थान पर अ य आरोपी कुलद प वै य पर ा म
स मिलत हुआ था।
20. अत: करण के अिभलेख म ऐसी भी कोई सा य मौजूद नह ं है क
आरोपी कुलद प वै य को पर ा के पर पर ा के दौरान िगर तार
कया गया था अथवा उसे पकड़कर अिभर ा म ले िलया था बाद
म िगर तार कया गया था। अत: ऐसी अव था म उ सा य के अभाव
म ऐसा कोई अनुमान भी नह ं िनकाला जा सकता क आरोपी कुलद प
क घटना दनांक को उ पर ा के म कोई पर ा नह ं थी, इस कारण
वह अ य कसी के थान पर पर ा दे ने हे तु स मिलत हुआ था।"
14. From the aforesaid facts narrated in the Trial Court judgment, it
becomes evident that there was no iota of evidence against the petitioner and
no one had identified him in the criminal case.
15. Another important aspect is that in the statement of witness-Manoj
Bhargara recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he had stated that the
petitioner was arrested by the Police in the examination centre. However, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
9 WP-12919-2023
arrest memo placed on record by the petitioner shows that he was arrested at
about 6.10 in the evening by the Police. Further, the FIR itself was registered
at 4.10 in the afternoon. It is thus, clear that the petitioner was not arrested
from the examination hall. He was arrested in the evening of the same day. It
is not clear as to on whose identification, he was arrested.
16. Yet another important aspect is that the petitioner's educational
qualification at the relevant time is stated to be BA 2nd Year in the arrest
memo. However, the allegation against him is that he was giving
examination for Physics subject, which appears to be highly improbable.
17. From the judgment passed by the Trial Court, it is gathered that the
handwriting of the petitioner was not got examined from the handwriting
found in the answer-sheet. At least, this could have been done by the
Screening Committee which would have clarified as to whether it was the
petitioner who was giving examination on behalf of co-accused Saurabh
Yadav or not? It is thus clear that Screening Committee has taken the
decision in the matter casually without considering all these aspects of the
matter as stated hereinabove.
18. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the Apex
Court decision in the case of Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and
Pradeep Kumar (supra) , wherein, it has been held that decision taken by the
Screening Committee is not liable to be interfered with. However, when the
decision taken by the Screening Committee is found to be casual and without
consideration of the relevant facts, the interference can be made in the writ
petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21474
10 WP-12919-2023
19. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed. The order
dated 27/4/2023 (Annexure P/1) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the
respondents for reconsideration/re-examination of the petitioner's
candidature for the purposes of his appointment on the post of Constable
keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Since, the matter relates
to year 2020, it is expected that the matter shall be considered and the
decision be taken expeditiously by the Screening Committee. Let necessary
exercise be done in this regard by the Screening Committee/respondents
within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of
this order.
20. With the aforesaid, the petition stands partly allowed and disposed
of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
