[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14923
1 WP-7704-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7704 of 2008
RAJENDRA YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate assisted with
Shri Aditya Singh Thakur appeared for petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Singh Dy. G.A. appeared for respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed while praying for the following reliefs:
"i. Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
Writ/order/Direction quashing the impugned order
dated 7.9.2007 as contained in Annexure P-5, and the
respondents be directed to immediately appoint the
petitioner in the post of Constable in the Department of
Police with effect from the order contained in Annexure
P-1 with all the consequential benefits therein.
ii. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
deem fit under the circumstances of the case may also
be issued."
2. The facts as detailed in the body of the petition reveal that the
petitioner moved an application for appointment as a Constable in the
Department of Police. The petitioner was selected vide Annexure P/1 and
was directed to appear in the office of respondents. At the time of seeking
appointment, the petitioner has submitted a form in which the petitioner
disclosed that in past, three criminal cases were registered against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14923
2 WP-7704-2008
petitioner, however, in all three cases, the petitioner stood acquitted. Yet
despite the said disclosure, the petitioner's candidature was turned down vide
impugned order dated 07/09/2007 (Annexure P/5) which is under challenge
in the present petition.
3. Senior Counsel contends that it is a case where the present
petitioner acting bonafidely and approaching the respondents with clean
hands, himself disclosed the factum of registration of three criminal cases
against him in past. The petitioner also disclosed in the form that he had
already been acquitted in all three cases which were pertaining to pitty
offences except offence under Section 458 of IPC. Therefore, there exists no
fetter in giving appointment against the post of the Constable. It is contended
by the Senior Counsel that a circular has been issued by the Department of
Home contained in Annexure P/4 dated 05/06/2003. Along with the said
circular, there is a list of various offences and as per the said list, except the
offence under Section 458 of IPC, none of the offences involved moral
turpitude. Therefore, considering the petitioner's acquittal, there was no
impediment to consider the candidature of present petitioner, hence, submits
that the impugned order be quashed.
4. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's
candidature was considered by the respondents. The petitioner since was
seeking appointment in a disciplinary force, the employer has taken the
decision after taking into consideration the past antecedents of the present
petitioner and the said decision so taken by the employer, does not require
any interference in absence of any infirmity or illegality. Hence, the petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14923
3 WP-7704-2008
is liable to the dismissed.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. In the case in hand, the petitioner is seeking induction in the
disciplinary force as a Constable. Undisputedly, three cases against the
petitioner were registered vide Crime No.60/04 with Police Station Cantt.,
Sagar, under Section 324, 323 of IPC, Crime No.372/04, Crime No.148/04
with Police Station Baheria, Sagar under Section 458, 294, 323, 427, 149 and
147 of IPC and under Section 324,323 and 34 of IPC. It is not clear from
Annexure P/5 or the application form of the present petitioner that Crime
No.372/04 was registered in which Police Station but it reflects from
paragraph 12 of the application submitted by the petitioner that, two cases
were registered with Police Station Sagar. A perusal of impugned order
further reflects that the petitioner was acquitted in all three cases on the basis
of compromise.
8. The law pertaining to the induction of a candidate in a
disciplinary force, where criminal case registered against him in past which
also resulted in acquittal, is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case
of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh reported
in (2013) 7 SCC 685 has held in paragraphs 26 and 35 as under:-
"26. In light of the above, we are of the opinion that
since the purpose of the departmental proceedings is to
keep persons, who are guilty of serious misconduct or
dereliction of duty or who are guilty of grave cases of
moral turpitude, out of the department, if found
necessary, because they pollute the department, surely
the above principles will apply with more vigour at the
point of entry of a person in the police department i.e. at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14923
4 WP-7704-2008
the time of recruitment. If it is found by the Screening
Committee that the person against whom a serious case
involving moral turpitude is registered is discharged on
technical grounds or is acquitted of the same charge but
the acquittal is not honourable, the Screening
Committee would be entitled to cancel his candidature.
Stricter norms need to be applied while appointing
persons in a disciplinary force because public interest is
involved in it."
* * * *
35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders
the great responsibility of maintaining law and order
and public order in the society. People repose great faith
and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that
confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force
must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have
impeccable character and integrity. A person having
criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if
he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that
acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to
see whether he has been completely exonerated in the
case because even a possibility of his taking to the life
of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police
force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the
task of taking decisions in these matters to the
Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening
Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.
In recent times, the image of the police force is
tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a
wayward manner by misusing power are in public
domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of
the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation,
we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy
of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created
by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely
to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At
the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive
to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must
treat all candidates with an even hand."
9. The Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
and Others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 has held in paragraphs 38.4.3 as
under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14923
5 WP-7704-2008
"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."
10. The Apex Court also in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v.
The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in 2023 (19) SCC
588 by referring the cases of Mehar Singh (supra), Avatar Singh (supra) and
other cases, has held as under:
"12. The expression "honourable acquittal" had also
come up for consideration in other cases,
namely, RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal
Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
594] ; and in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [R.P.
Kapur v. Union of India, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 47 :
AIR 1964 SC 787] whereby it was held inter alia that
the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to the
reinstatement in service. The acquittal, it was held, has
to be honourable. As such, the expressions "honourable
acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are
unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the
Penal Code, and it is difficult to define precisely what is
meant by expressions "honourable acquittal".
13. In Pradeep Kumar case [State (UT of
Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 504 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]
also it was reiterated that if a person is acquitted or
discharged, it cannot obviously be inferred that he was
falsely involved, or he had no criminal antecedents. The
precise observations made therein are reproduced
hereunder : (Pradeep Kumar case [State (UT of
Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 504 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] ,
SCC pp. 802-803 & 805-806, paras 10 & 13)
"10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not
conclusive of the suitability of the candidates
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14923
6 WP-7704-2008
in the post concerned. If a person is acquitted
or discharged, it cannot always be inferred
that he was falsely involved or he had no
criminal antecedents. Unless it is an
honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot
claim the benefit of the case. What is
honourable acquittal, was considered by this
Court in Inspector General of Police v. S.
Samuthiram [Inspector General of
Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC
(L&S) 229] , in which this Court held as
under : (SCC p. 609, para 24)
'24. The meaning of the expression
"honourable acquittal" came up for
consideration before this Court
i n RBI v. Bhopal Singh
Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal,
(1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] .
In that case, this Court has considered the
impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with
honourable acquittal by a criminal court on
the disciplinary proceedings. In that context,
this Court held that the mere acquittal does
not entitle an employee to reinstatement in
service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be
honourable. The expressions "honourable
acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully
exonerated" are unknown to the Code of
Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which
are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is
difficult to define precisely what is meant by
the expression "honourably acquitted". When
the accused is acquitted after full
consideration of prosecution evidence and
that the prosecution had miserably failed to
prove the charges levelled against the
accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused was honourably acquitted.'
11.-12. ***
13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a
criminal case does not automatically entitle
him for appointment to the post. Still, it is
open to the employer to consider the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14923
7 WP-7704-2008
antecedents and examine whether he is
suitable for appointment to the post. From the
observations of this Court in Mehar
Singh [Delhi Police v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7
SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2
SCC (L&S) 910] and Parvez Khan [State of
M.P. v. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 :
(2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 544] cases, it is clear
that a candidate to be recruited to the police
service must be of 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 honourably
acquitted/completely exonerated. The
decision of the Screening Committee must be
taken as final unless it is shown to be mala
fide. The Screening Committee also must be
alive to the importance of the trust reposed in
it and must examine the candidate with
utmost character."
***
15. In all the above cases, the requirement of integrity
and high standard of conduct in police force has been
highly emphasised. The High Court in the impugned
judgment has also elaborately dealt with each and every
aspect of the issues involved, while upholding the order
of the Single Bench to the effect that the Director
General being the highest functionary in the police
hierarchy, was the best judge to consider the suitability
of the petitioner for induction into the police force. The
impugned order [Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of J&K ,
2019 SCC OnLine J&K 687] being just and proper, we
are not inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of
our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India."
11. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, make it
abundantly clear that even in the cases of acquittal, it is the prerogative of the
employer to take decision as regards suitability of a candidate for induction
in Uniformed Force. Undisputedly, not only one, but three cases were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14923
8 WP-7704-2008
registered against the petitioner and in all three cases, the petitioner was
acquitted on the basis of compounding which is further evident from
Annexure P/5. It is also undisputed that one of the case against the present
petitioner was under Section 458 of IPC and, an offence under Section 458
of IPC, was not included in the list of the offences which did not involve
offence of moral turpitude appended to Annexure P/4 dated 05/06/2003.
12. Therefore, if in the case in hand, after taking into consideration
the factum of acquittal in as many as three cases of the present petitioner on
the basis of compounding, the decision has been taken by the employer to
reject the candidature of the petitioner. Such a decision does not require any
interference in absence of any allegation of arbitrariness or malafides. The
order contained in Annexure P/5 is a speaking order and the Authority has
considered the factum of suitability of the present petitioner and thus, this
Court is of the view that no interference with the impugned order is
warranted.
13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
