Awanish Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

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
th
{Delivered on 6 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

2
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:

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
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,

9
(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

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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'