Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari vs Union Of India Thruogh Ministryu Of Home ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27834
1 WP-37865-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 23rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37865 of 2025
DHARMENDRA KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THRUOGH MINISTRYU OF HOME AFFAIRS AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gyanish Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and
validity of the order dated 26.05.2025, by which the respondent no.5
cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner earlier filed WP
No.25415/2025 before the Principal Seat at Jabalpur. The said petition was
dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to file petition
before Indore bench.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post
of Sepoy in Armed forced on 14.01.2004. The petitioner has retired from
Army Services on 03.01.2021. The Staff Selection Committee has issued an
advertisement for the post of Constable (GD). It is submitted that petitioner
had applied for the said post as an Ex-Army Personnel. It is further submitted
that Computer Based Test was held, in which, petitioner was declared passed.
Thereafter, respondents have verified the document of the petitioner. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27834
2 WP-37865-2025
respondent no.3 has issued an order dated 23.12.204 by which the petitioner
has been selected as Constable (GD) in BSF. The petitioner was sent on Staff
Training Centre, Jodhpur Rajasthan. The petitioner has disclosed that a
criminal case is pending against him under section 296, 351(B), 351(C), 352,
74, 75(A) and 79 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has been
sent for training of Constable (GD) to STC, BSF, Hazaribag. The petitioner
was qualified the final test conducted on 21.05.2025. In course of training,
respondent no.5 has issued an order dated 26.05.2025, by which, he has
cancelled the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD).
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent no.4 has written a letter on
30.05.2025, by which, he has informed the petitioner that his appointment
order has been cancelled by the respondent no.3 vide order dated 26.05.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the
impugned order of cancelling the appointment has been passed without
issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner violating the principles of
natural justice.
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and
submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an accused of a
criminal case under section 74, 75(1), 296, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 79 of
BNSS. The said fact has been mentioned in the character verification vide
Annexure P/2. The appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in view
of the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Government of India dated
01.02.2012 and 16.07.2020 as the petitioner is an accused of serious offence
involving moral turpitude.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27834
3 WP-37865-2025
It is further mentioned that section 74 and 75 (1) is equivalent to
section 354 and 354(a) of IPC. He further submits that the petitioner was
selected for the post of Constable (GD) 2024 and was only offered
temporary provisional appointment and was sent to training. However, on
verification of the character, a report has been received Annexure P/2 and
therefore, the appointment has been cancelled.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that since
the registration of the aforesaid criminal case is not disputed by learned
counsel for the petitioner, therefore, giving a show cause notice or
opportunity of hearing would be a useless formality.
In case of the Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1966
SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] the Apex Court held that it is not always
necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of
natural justice. In M.C. Mehta [(1999) 6 SCC 237] it was pointed out that at
one time, it was held in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66
(HL)] that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as
prejudice and that no other "de facto" prejudice needed to be proved. But,
since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but
also in our country. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379] the
said judgment was followed.
In the case of K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India [(1984) 1 SCC 43 ,
the court in para 25 held that mere violation of principles of natural justice is
not sufficient unless prejudice is shown to be caused. Considering the
principles of useless formality in the case of Meerabai Vs. State of MP and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27834
4 WP-37865-2025
Ors passed in WA No.108/2009 following the said judgment held that the
impugned order cannot be quashed merely on the ground of not following
the principle of natural justice, when the said procedure would be only a
useless procedure.
In the present case also this Court finds that the registration of a
criminal case is not disputed. The petitioner was selected for the post of
Constable in the Border Security Force and was given temporary provisional
offer and was sent to the training. The petitioner is not a permanent
employee. The provisional appointment was subject to verification of his
character verification report.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the
order. The respondents are fully justified in cancelling the appointment of
the petitioner, who is an accused in a criminal case under section 74, 75(1),
296, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 79 of BNSS. Thus, no case is made out for
interreference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
