Awanish Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2026

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma

                                                     1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                         AT GWALIOR
                                               BEFORE
                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                    &
                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                            WRIT APPEAL NO. 1472 of 2024

                                 AWANISH DWIVEDI
                                       Vs.
                          STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

                                                     &

                             WRIT APPEAL NO. 591 of 2025

                           STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
                                                    Vs.
                                        AWANISH DWIVEDI
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 APPEARANCE:
      Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner/appellant
 (Awanish Dwivedi).
      Shri Ankur Mody- Additional Advocate General and Shri
 Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               JUDGMENT

{Delivered on 6th the Day of March, 2026} Per: Justice Anand Pathak

1. Heard on I.A.No.2459/2025, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 206 days.

2. Counsel for the appellants referred contents of application and submits that delay has been caused in filing the appeal. According to appellants, opinion was sought from the Advocate General's office on 09-08-2024 and thereafter same was sent to the higher authorities

seeking permission to file writ appeal and the permission to prefer appeal was received on 25-11-2024 and thereafter on 09-12-2024 OIC was appointed in the matter. Thereafter, as instructed, OIC of the matter collected departmental record of the petitioner which took time and then only the appeal was prepared. Thus, in procedural formalities, some delay has occurred in filing the present writ appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of application for condonation of delay.

4. Although delay appears to be much, however considering the contents of the application and sufficiency of cause, same is hereby allowed. Delay in preferring the present writ appeal is hereby condoned in the interest of justice. Matter is directed to be heard on merits.

5. Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, both the appeals are being heard analogously and decided by this common judgment. For factual clarity, facts of Writ Appeal No.591/2025 are taken into consideration. This writ appeal is preferred by State of Madhya Pradesh.

6. The present appeal (Writ Appeal No.591/2025) under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants/State being crestfallen by the order dated 08-05-2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2124 of 2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to the as "the petitioner") has been allowed.

7. Facts in brief:

To appreciate the controversy in better perspective, following dates and events are worth consideration:
S.No.      Dates                           Events
1       1998        One criminal case at crime No. 800/1998 for
                    offences under section 447, 456 of IPC was
registered against respondent/petitioner. 2 30/09/98 Petitioner was arrested.

3 05/11/98 After completion of investigation in the matter challan was filed before the Court of JMFC. 4 06/09/99 Petitioner was acquitted from the aforesaid charges on the basis of compromise.

5 2003 Petitioner was appointed on the post of constable in the police department. Thereafter he served his duty.

6 2003-2011 Petitioner served his duty at Balaghat. 7 2011-2013 Petitioner was transferred to Gwalior. 8 2012 While serving the appellants' department, respondent participated in intra departmental examination for the post of Subedar/Sub-

Inspector/Platoon Commander Recruitment examination. Thereafter he was selected to the post of Sub-inspector.
9       06/05/13    After found medically fit for the post of Sub
                    Inspector,       respondent   was   allowed     to
participate in the training at institute Jawaharlal Nehru Police Academy, Sagar.

10 2013 When respondent was undergoing training, character verification report was received from the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior wherein it was found that respondent/petitioner was

arrested on 30-09-1998 for the offences under Section 447 and 456 of IPC.

11 2013 The aforesaid information regarding arrest was deliberately suppressed by the respondent while submitting his candidature for the post of sub- inspector and in column no. 12 of application form wherein relevant information regarding registration of criminal case was not mentioned by the respondent/petitioner. The said conduct of petitioner was clear violation of clause 14 of GOP No.78/1997 dt. 02.04.1997 and amended GOP dt. 05.06.2007.
12   14/05/13   Show      cause     notice     was    issued   to    the
                respondent,        asking     his    clarification   on
                suppression        of    relevant    information     and
previous criminal antecedents while applying for the post of sub-inspector. Direction was also given to S.P., Gwalior to examine the complete service record of the respondent/petitioner. 13 14/05/13 Complete service record of petitioner including Balaghat and petitioner's previous place of posting was received along with the information submitted by him at the time of his initial application form for the post of constable.

14 It is not out of place to mention here that, in the said show cause notice special instructions was given to the S.P., Gwalior in case it was found

that respondent got initial appointment in the police department over the post of constable in year 2003 by submitting wrong or incorrect information in the application form and affidavit, regarding his previous criminal antecedents then Departmental Enquiry be initiated against the petitioner.

15 28/05/13 Vide order dated 28-05-2013 candidature of respondent/petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector was rejected as reply to the show cause notice was not found to be satisfactory, especially in facts and circumstances that respondent was already working in uniform service since last 10 years.

16 29/05/13 Writ Petition No.3913/2013 was preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dt. 28-05-2013 which was dismissed vide order dt. 08-05-2024.

17 W.A. No.1472/2024 was preferred against the order dt. 08.05.2024 which is also heard analogously along with present appeal.

18 2014 Departmental enquiry bearing No.21/2014 was conducted against the petitioner for submitting application form for the post of constable in the police department.

19 07/05/15 Investigation report was submitted by enquiry

officer wherein charges against respondent was proved.

20 07/05/15 Show cause notice was issued to the respondent and he was directed to submit his response within period 7 days.

21 25/05/15 Respondent submitted the representation which was not found satisfactory and after granting him proper opportunity of hearing, order of termination for the post of constable was passed.

Respondent was working in police force since year 2003 therefore, he was very much aware about the procedure, conduct in nature of discipline required from personnel.

22 Respondent deliberately and intentionally suppressed the fact of criminal antecedents on two occasions:

i. While submitting application form for the post of constable (year 2003).

ii. While submitting application form for the post of Sub Inspector (year 2012).

These acts of respondent cannot be treated as a common mistake which was committed.

23 08/08/15 An appeal was preferred before the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range which was dismissed vide order dt. 08-08-2015 and it was

found that, termination from services of respondent is rightly passed.

24 29/12/15 Against the order dated 08-08-2015 one appeal before Director General of Police was preferred which was disposed of on 29-12-2015 wherein also the decision of termination of services was upheld.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants advanced arguments at length. It is submitted that learned Writ Court failed to consider that on two occasions, petitioner (respondent herein) deliberately and malafidely suppressed his criminal antecedents from the department, hence his termination order needs no interference. All the grievances and grounds raised by the petitioner were considered and dealt with in detail in departmental appeal. Petitioner was appointed on the post of constable and at that time he informed the department correctly about his involvement in case. However, when he appeared in examination for the post of Sub Inspector then he did not furnish the information about registration of criminal case. His intimation even if sent by him was an afterthought, therefore, cannot be considered.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of constable in year 2003 and thereafter in 2012 he appeared in examination for the post of Sub Inspector and when this fact came to the knowledge about suppression of information in year 2012 then on the basis of such suppression he is removed from the post of constable also.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer. Prime argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that he informed the appellants (respondents in writ petition) about

his character antecedents by sending intimation through registered AD. Since offence under Sections 447 and 456 of IPC was registered against him in which compromise was arrived at, therefore, in light of judgments of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532 his case be considered for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector as the said judgments talks about the objective consideration and once no objective consideration is shown by the departmental authority then it is for the Constitutional Court to invoke its jurisdiction for judicial review. He also relied upon the judgments of Division Bench passed in W.A.No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) dated 01-05-2020 as well as in W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 24-07-2024 wherein the issue in relation to failure of character verification has been dealt with and the Court directed the employer to consider the case of petitioner.

11. Both the parties argued at length. Heard rival submissions and perused the documents appended thereto.

12. This is a case where petitioner filed two writ petitions; one writ petition No.3913/2013 challenging the order dated 29-05-2013 passed by Superintendent of Police, Gwalior whereby his candidature for the post of Sub Inspector has been rejected. Writ Petition No.2124/2016 was preferred by him against the order dated 29-12- 2015 whereby the appeal preferred by him before the Director General of Police against his removal from the post of Constable, has been rejected.

13. Law regarding scope of appointment vis-à-vis criminal antecedents is well settled. In case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh,

(2013) 7 SCC 685, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591, Avtar Singh (supra), Pawan Kumar (supra) and Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. Inspector General and Chief Secretary Commissioner, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 299 has given guidance from time to time. Relevant extract from Pawan Kumar (supra) will throw light over the issue in question:

"13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service."

14. This is in respect of a person who is removed from the job. So far as giving appointment to the post of Constable is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) delineated the issue in following manner:

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and

reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate

services of the employee.

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. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order

of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

15. In the present case, admittedly respondent (petitioner in writ petition) was working as Constable since 2003. Thereafter, real catastrophic moment came for petitioner in 2012 when he appeared in the examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector. He did not disclose the description of criminal case registered against him earlier for offence under Sections 447 and 456 of IPC and subsequent compromise reached between the parties and acquittal recorded vide order dated 06-09-1999. He did not disclose in column No.12 of Attestation Form. Although he subsequently sent the information through registered AD but that has not been taken into consideration by the department.

16. Therefore, on the basis of non-disclosure of information in Attestation Form for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector, would

cause dent to the prospects of petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector but certainly not for continuation of his job as Constable. View taken by the department was erroneous and illegal. He worked almost for a decade and at that point of time he did not violate any condition of appointment. Therefore, so far as continuation of appointment on the post of Constable is concerned, he deserves to be retained in the department. It would be too harsh to remove him after ten years, especially when his service record is otherwise clean. Therefore, learned Writ Court rightly passed the impugned order whereby writ petition No.2124/2016 is allowed and impugned order of said writ petition was set aside. Petitioner cannot be punished in this manner. He already punished for removal from the post of Sub Inspector and non-disclosure of required information.

17. So far as petitioner's removal from the post of Sub Inspector is concerned, in view of the judgments referred above and in view of the discussion made by learned Writ Court, it is clear that petitioner at the time of filling up the form, left column No.12 blank in his Character Verification Form whereas he bears criminal record of offence under Section 447 and 456 of IPC. Although that case resulted into acquittal because of compromise reached between the parties. However, it is always the domain of employer to assess peculiar facts and circumstances while considering a person's suitability in the job.

18. Indeed, post of Constable and post of Sub Inspector bears different responsibility. In the case of Constable, no executive decision is required to be taken and usually one has to follow the command. However, in case of Sub Inspector certain executive decisions and at times certain statutory powers are to be exercised in respect of Crime

Investigation and Law & Order Maintenance. Therefore, the person is to be upright and clean. Higher the responsibility, stricter the parameters of antecedents.

19. Although at times in certain region specially in State of Madhya Pradesh, there is tendency of falsely implicating the persons while registering FIR. Application of any law is always meant for the prevailing time, social conditions and mores as well as surroundings in which it operates. In the jurisdiction of this Court, many cases are registered at the instance of complainant with overtone of false implication or over implication. Many a times, a person who is serving in a government job is implicated as an accused and in many cases, a candidate preparing for government job or an aspirant, is also roped in as an accused so as to frustrate his future prospects. The Police Authorities which operate at ground level, are well versed with the ground reality and decipher each and every case with precaution and care because future prospects of a candidate to enter into government job ought not lie at the mercy of the complainant who may lodge false complaint at any time against any person.

20. However, looking to the post (Sub Inspector) and nature of duties involved, it is better that matter be left to the authority to decide. Facing criminal trial and non-disclosure of information if seen in juxtaposition, then makes the picture gloomy for petitioner. There is no error found in factual and in legal discussion undertaken by learned Writ Court. Thus, order impugned stands affirmed. So far as order dated 08-05-2024 passed in writ petition No.2124/2016 by which petitioner was removed from the job of Constable deserves to be set aside and as directed by learned Writ Court petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service with 25% back wages and all

consequential benefits. However, the appeal preferred by petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector is dismissed.

21. Resultantly, both the Writ Appeals (Writ Appeal No.1472/2024 and Writ Appeal No.591/2025) stand dismissed. Copy of this order be kept in Writ Appeal No.1472/2024.

22. Ordered accordingly.
                      (ANAND PATHAK)                          (ANIL VERMA)
  Anil*                   JUDGE                                   JUDGE

ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2026.03.06 18:01:47
+05'30'
 