Nandkishore Lilhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No.10238 of 2023
CNR No.: MPHC010800422023
Nandkishore Lilhare
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Ms. Ayushi Tiwari – Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shweta Yadav – Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 18.09.2026
Delivered on : 28.10.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the instant petition questioning the legality, validity
and propriety of the suo motu revisional show-cause notice dated 21.03.2022
(Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No. 3, the consequential revisional order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
2
dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No. 3 setting aside
the appellate reinstatement order dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) and
restoring the order of removal from service dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P-6),
as well as the order dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent
No. 2 dismissing the petitioner’s mercy appeal. The petitioner further prays
for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him in
service with all consequential benefits.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner, while he
was a student pursuing his schooling and graduation in Balaghat between 2000
and 2006, two criminal cases and two connected preventive proceedings were
registered against him. First, Crime No. 42/2003 was registered at Police
Station Gramin (Navegaon), Balaghat for offences punishable under Sections
341, 294, 323, 506-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered as
Criminal Case No. 168/2003 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Balaghat, in which the petitioner was acquitted in the year 2005. Alongside
this FIR, a preventive proceeding bearing Istgasa No. 38/2003 under Sections
107 and 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed before the
Tehsil Court, Balaghat. Second, Crime No. 282/2006 was registered on
22.08.2006 at Police Station Kotwali, Balaghat on the report of one Rajendra
Uikey for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 341 and 34 of the IPC arising
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
3
out of a college dispute at a time when the petitioner was the College
President. Upon the intervention of college professors, the dispute was
amicably resolved and the petitioner was acquitted by the competent court in
the year 2008 on the basis of compromise. Alongside this incident, a
preventive proceeding bearing Istgasa No. 212/2006 under Sections 107 and
116(3) of the Cr.P.C. was initiated before the Court of the Tehsildar/SDM,
Balaghat, which also stood closed.
3. On 10.01.2011, the petitioner submitted an application form for
recruitment to the post of Police Constable under the OBC category in the
Constable Cadre Recruitment Examination, 2011. In Clauses 19 and 20 of the
application form, which asked whether any offence is registered against the
applicant or whether he has been arrested, prosecuted or convicted by a Court,
the petitioner wrote ‘NO’. Upon being declared successful in the selection
process, the petitioner filled out the prescribed Attestation Form for character
verification on 04.03.2011. In Column 12(a) of the Attestation Form which
asked whether he had ever been arrested, prosecuted, detained, bound down,
fined or convicted, the petitioner answered ‘Yes’ . Under the sub-columns of
Column 12(a)/(b), he mentioned ‘ . . 212/06 107, 116(3)’ registered
इ è त Đ धारा
at ‘ ’ and filled ‘Nil’ against punishment awarded. He answered
थाना Ē ामीण
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
4
‘Yes’ against the query whether he was acquitted and wrote ‘Nil’ against
whether the acquittal was based on benefit of doubt or withdrawal.
4. By letters dated 04.03.2011, the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat
directed the Station House Officers (SHOs) of Police Station Gramin and
Police Station Kotwali, Balaghat to verify the petitioner’s character and
antecedents from 2000 to 2008. The then SHO of Police Station Gramin
(Inspector K.N. Tripathi) submitted verification report dated 10.03.2011
certifying that upon examining the Village Crime Notebook Parts 2 and 3 and
station records, only Istgasa No. 212/06 under Sections 107, 116(3) Cr.P.C.
was registered against the petitioner, the information furnished by the
candidate in the form was completely accurate and no other offence was
registered or pending against him. Similarly, no adverse criminal record was
reported by Police Station Kotwali, Balaghat. Consequently, the
Superintendent of Police, Balaghat forwarded a favourable character
verification report dated 16.03.2011 to the Assistant Inspector General of
Police, Special Branch (Security), Bhopal and after clearance from the Special
Branch, PHQ Bhopal vide letter dated 15.04.2011, the petitioner was
appointed as Constable No. 17 vide order dated 30.05.2011. The petitioner
completed his basic training and served the department continuously for over
a decade, earning 119 rewards against a solitary minor censure.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
5
5. While serving as a Constable, the petitioner participated in the
Subedar/Sub-Inspector Cadre Recruitment Examination, 2017 conducted by
the Professional Examination Board. He cleared the written test, physical
proficiency test and interview, and was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector
in the District Police Force under the OBC/Police category. In his Sub-
Inspector application and verification forms, the petitioner voluntarily
disclosed the complete particulars of both prior criminal cases and preventive
proceedings. However, the respondents declared him unfit for appointment as
Sub-Inspector on the ground that his acquittal on the basis of compromise did
not fall within the category of a clean or honourable acquittal. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 26058/2018, which was disposed of by
this Court on 27.01.2020 directing the respondents to reconsider his case.
Upon reconsideration, the respondents again declared him unfit for the post of
Sub-Inspector vide order dated 27.06.2020. The petitioner challenged the
order dated 27.06.2020 by filing W.P. No. 2059/2021 before this Court.
6. Immediately after the reconsideration of his Sub-Inspector
candidature, the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat ordered a Preliminary
Enquiry on 22.07.2020 into the petitioner’s 2011 Constable character
verification. The City Superintendent of Police (CSP), Balaghat submitted a
Preliminary Enquiry report dated 27.10.2020 concluding that the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
6
had suppressed Crime No. 42/2003 (P.S. Gramin) and Crime No. 282/2006
(P.S. Kotwali) in his 2011 Constable recruitment application and Attestation
Form. On that basis, respondent No. 5 (SP, Balaghat) issued a Charge-Sheet
dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) initiating Departmental Enquiry No.
04/2021 on the sole charge that upon his selection as Constable in 2011, the
petitioner failed to mention registered criminal cases against him in his
Attestation Form, thereby concealing facts and furnishing false information to
render himself unfit for government service.
7. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 06.03.2021/12.03.2021
denying any willful suppression. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Police),
Waraseoni was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and recorded the statements
of 6 prosecution witnesses (Annexure P-2). Following notice dated
07.08.2021 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner submitted his defence statement
(Annexure P-4) contending inter alia that he had been acquitted in 2005 and
2008 prior to his 2011 recruitment and had disclosed all cases in an affidavit
appended to his 2011 Attestation Form. The Enquiry Officer found the charge
proved and a show-cause notice dated 30.08.2021 was issued to the petitioner
along with the enquiry report. After the petitioner submitted his defence
representation (Annexure P-5), a copy of his 2011 Attestation Form and the
accompanying affidavit was requisitioned from the Police Headquarters and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
7
supplied to him on 12.10.2021. Finding that both Column 12 of the Attestation
Form and the attached affidavit mentioned only the preventive proceeding
under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. and did not mention Crime No. 42/2003 and
Crime No. 282/2006, respondent No. 5 (SP, Balaghat) relying on Clause 14 of
GOP No. 78/97, passed the order dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P-6) imposing
the major punishment of removal from service.
8. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal (Annexure P-6-A)
before respondent No. 4 (Deputy Inspector General of Police, Balaghat
Range). Vide order dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-7), the Appellate Authority
partly allowed the appeal, set aside the punishment of removal from service
and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service. The Appellate
Authority substituted the penalty with reduction of pay equal to one annual
increment with cumulative effect and treated the intervening period as “No
work No pay” . Pursuant thereto, the petitioner rejoined his duties as
Constable.
9. However, barely seven days later, on 21.03.2022, respondent No. 3
(Additional Director General of Police, Balaghat Zone) took the matter up in
suo motu revision and issued the impugned show-cause notice (Annexure P-
8) stating that he disagreed with the appellate order dated 14.03.2022 and
calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply within 7 days. Despite the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
8
petitioner’s detailed representation (Annexure P-9) praying for a lenient and
sympathetic view, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated
04.04.2022 (Annexure P-10) setting aside the DIG’s appellate order dated
14.03.2022 and restoring the SP’s removal order dated 24.11.2021. The
petitioner’s mercy appeal dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-11) was
subsequently rejected by respondent No. 2 (DGP, M.P.) vide the impugned
order dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure P-12). Hence, this writ petition.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that prior to submitting the
application for the post of Constable on 10.01.2011 and filling out the
Attestation Form on 04.03.2011, the petitioner had already been acquitted by
the competent criminal courts as far back as in 2005 (in Crime No. 42/2003,
PS Gramin) and in 2008 (in Crime No. 282/2006, PS Kotwali). Since no
criminal case was either registered or pending against him on the date of
application and he had never been convicted by any court of law, the
petitioner, out of a bona fide layman’s understanding of the legal terminology
in Clauses 19 and 20 of the application form, wrote ‘No’ without any intention
to deceive the department. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel that in the
Attestation Form dated 04.03.2011, the petitioner did not make a blanket
denial; rather, he truthfully wrote ‘Yes’ in Column 12(a) regarding past
prosecution/preventive bond and ‘Yes’ in sub-column (vi) regarding his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
9
acquittal, while mentioning Istgasa No. 212/06 under Sections 107, 116(3)
Cr.P.C. in the limited space available on the form as all selected candidates
were filling out the form for the first time at the SP Office. Furthermore, under
Regulation 241 of the M.P. Police Regulations, once an individual is acquitted
by a criminal court, he cannot be subjected to departmental punishment on the
same count.
11. The Ld. Counsel further submits that during the 2011 character
verification, both local police stations (PS Gramin and PS Kotwali) verified
their crime registers and sent official reports to the SP Balaghat stating that
apart from Istgasa No. 212/06, no criminal offence was registered against the
petitioner. In the departmental enquiry, Prosecution Witness No. 1 (Acting
Inspector Premlal Shivvanshi, District Special Branch) categorically admitted
in cross-examination in question No. 4 that there was no fault on the part of
the petitioner if PS Gramin and PS Kotwali did not mention the past cases in
their 2011 verification reports. Similarly, PW-6 (CSP Karnik Shrivastava,
Preliminary Enquiry Officer) admitted in cross-examination that the offences
of 2003 and 2006 were not grave offences and therefore did not even find
mention in the CSP’s crime digest. It is thus submitted that the offences were
even otherwise trivial in nature and the petitioner was acquitted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
10
12. It is further submitted that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings
after an inordinate delay of 10 years and the hasty suo motu revision initiated
within 7 days of the DIG’s reinstatement order dated 14.03.2022 are vitiated
by malice in law and fact. Because the petitioner had been selected on merits
for the post of Sub-Inspector in 2017 where he had disclosed both past cases
and had approached this Court in W.P. No. 26058/2018 and W.P. No.
2059/2021 challenging the rejection of his SI candidature, the respondents
engineered his termination from the feeder post of Constable to render W.P.
No. 2059/2021 infructuous, immediately filing their return in W.P. No.
2059/2021 on 31.03.2022 citing the suo motu revision notice.
13. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon
the decision of this Court in Kailash Chandra Sirvi v. State of M.P. , 2016 (4)
MPLJ 370 and the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2024) 5 SCC 264 .
On the strength of these judgments, Ld. Counsel submits that an acquittal
wipes out the crime altogether and that an employer cannot mechanically
terminate an employee for non-disclosure of an old, concluded trivial criminal
case without objectively considering his youth at the time of the incident, the
nature of the offences, his prior acquittal and his unblemished 10 year service
record comprising 119 rewards.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
11
14. Per contra , Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents/State has
supported the impugned orders and opposed the writ petition on the ground
that in terms of Clause 14 of GOP No. 78/97 (updated on 04.06.2005) as well
as the explicit warning printed at the top of the Attestation Form, every
candidate selected in the Police Department is bound to furnish true and
complete information regarding his character and antecedents. If a candidate
suppresses any material fact or furnishes false information in the verification
form, he is rendered unfit for service and if such suppression comes to light
after appointment, his services are liable to be terminated. It is further averred
that a perusal of the petitioner’s Attestation Form and the affidavit
requisitioned from Police Headquarters establishes that while the petitioner
mentioned the preventive proceeding under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. (Istgasa
No. 212/06), he suppressed the factum of registration of two criminal cases
against him, namely Crime No. 42/2003 and Crime No. 282/2006. Even
though the petitioner had been acquitted in those cases, the acquittal in Crime
No. 282/2006 was based on a compromise and was not a clean or honourable
acquittal. Had he disclosed those cases in Column 12, they would have been
treated as involving moral turpitude rendering him unfit for police service.
15. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for the State that a full-
fledged departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
12
principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity to
cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, inspect the requisitioned Attestation
Form and affidavit and submit his defence statements before both the Enquiry
Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. When respondent No. 4 partly allowed
the petitioner’s appeal on 14.03.2022 by modifying the punishment of removal
to stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, the petitioner did
not challenge the order dated 14.03.2022 before any higher forum which
demonstrates that the petitioner was fully satisfied with and accepted the
finding of guilt recorded in the departmental enquiry.
16. It is thus submitted that the respondent No. 3 (ADGP, Balaghat
Zone), being dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the modified punishment
imposed by the DIG in a matter involving recruitment through suppression of
material facts, lawfully exercised his suo motu revisional jurisdiction, issued
a show-cause notice dated 21.03.2022, considered the petitioner’s reply and
passed a well-reasoned order dated 04.04.2022 restoring the punishment of
removal from service, which was rightly affirmed by the DGP on 04.07.2022.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that retaining a person who was involved in
criminal cases and secured appointment by suppression in a uniformed police
force would send an adverse message to society.
17. Heard the respective Counsel at length and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
13
18. The core questions that arise for consideration before this Court are:-
i. Whether the respondents were justified in treating the petitioner’s
prior criminal cases which had already culminated in acquittals in
2005 and 2008 as a bar to his suitability in the police force?
ii. Whether the omission by the petitioner to specifically enumerate
Crime No. 42/2003 and Crime No. 282/2006 in his 2011 Constable
Attestation Form while answering “Yes” to prosecution/acquittal
and mentioning Istgasa No. 212/06 warranted the extreme penalty
of removal from service after 10 years of blemish-free service; and
iii. Whether the impugned suo motu revisional order dated 04.04.2022
(Annexure P-10) and appellate order dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure
P-12) satisfy the touchstone of non-arbitrariness and
proportionality laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?
19. Before examining the charge of non-disclosure in the 2011
Constable recruitment form, it is necessary to advert to the backdrop in which
the present controversy erupted after a lapse of nearly ten years. The petitioner
was appointed as a Constable on 30.05.2011 after due verification by both
concerned police stations and the Special Branch, Bhopal. For nearly a decade,
no question was ever raised regarding his 2011 Attestation Form. The record
reveals that when the petitioner participated as an in-service candidate in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
14
Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2017 and was selected on merit, he
candidly disclosed the complete details of both Crime No. 42/2003, Crime No.
282/2006 and the preventive proceedings in his Sub-Inspector application
form. It was only when the respondents rejected his Sub-Inspector candidature
on the ground that his compromise acquittal was not an honourable acquittal
and the petitioner assailed that rejection before this Court in W.P. No.
26058/2018 and subsequently in W.P. No. 2059/2021, that the respondents
initiated the Preliminary Enquiry on 22.07.2020 to reopen his 2011 Constable
recruitment.
20. Both in rejecting his Sub-Inspector candidature and in the impugned
removal order dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P-6) as well as the State’s Reply
before this Court, the respondents have taken the stand that the petitioner’s
acquittal based on compromise does not amount to a clean or honourable
acquittal and that the offences under Sections 294, 323, 341, 506-B/34 IPC
involved moral turpitude rendering him unfit for the police force.
21. This very contention has been authoritatively repelled by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Kailash Chandra Sirvi v. State of M.P. and
others , 2016 (4) MPLJ 370 . In Kailash Chandra Sirvi (supra) , the petitioner
was appointed as a Police Constable in 2007 and subsequently selected for the
post of Sub-Inspector in the 2013 examination. Having been prosecuted and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
15
acquitted for an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the Screening
Committee declared him unfit for the post of Sub-Inspector on the ground that
his acquittal was not on merits and involved moral turpitude. Allowing the
writ petition and directing his appointment as Sub-Inspector, this Court held
that once an accused is acquitted, the entire crime registered against him stands
wiped off and underscored the anomaly of declaring a serving Constable unfit
for the post of Sub-Inspector:
“ 10. The stand of the State Government that the petitioner is
not fit to serve the police department as Sub Inspector
seems to be ridiculous. The petitioner is already a member
of police force and if he can serve the police department
on the post of Constable, he can very well serve on post of
Sub Inspector of Police in the police department.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court an acquittal is an
acquittal. There is no such distinction between acquittal on
merits and acquittal on the basis of benefits of doubt.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
22. Furthermore, in Kailash Chandra Sirvi (supra) , this Court
extensively relied upon the decisions in Manish Verma v. State of M.P. , W.P.
No. 3560/2014 , affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 73/2015 where
the case had been compromised and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by
dismissing SLP (C) No. 592/2015 on 18.01.2016. This Court further relied on
Rakesh Sharma v. State of M.P. , W.P. No. 9913/2012 ; Smt. Panna Mehta v.
State of M.P. , 2003 (1) M.P.L.J. 370 ; Pushpendra Mishra v. State of M.P. ,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
16
2015 MPLJ Online 1 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh , (2015) 2 SCC 377 . In
Pushpendra Mishra (supra) , quoted with approval in paragraph No. 17 of
Kailash Chandra Sirvi (supra) , this Court specifically distinguished State of
M.P. v. Parvez Khan on the ground that petty quarrels involving minor IPC
sections such as Sections 323, 294, 506-B/34 IPC cannot be equated with
heinous offences like dacoity under Sections 394/395 IPC and relied upon
Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, Civil Appeal no. 1430/2007 to
hold that minor indiscretions committed by young people ought to be
condoned rather than branding them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
Paragraph No. 17 of Kailash Chandra Sirvi (supra) states as:-
“ 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of
Pushpendra Mishra v. State of M.P. in Writ Petition No.
5795/2015 decided on 19-8-2015 [2015 MPLJ Online 1] .
The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment has
held as under:
“The authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Constable on the ground that a
criminal case was registered against the petitioner.
However, authority did not consider the merit of the
criminal case. The authority has also not taken into
consideration the fact that a counter case was also
registered against the complainant party. The petitioner
and complainant party are neighbour. The offences are
minor in nature. The trial Court already observed that the
story put-forth by the prosecution is suspicious. It is a fact
that a person who has criminal antecedents cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
17
appointed in the police department. However, it has also
to be taken into consideration that whether a person was
falsely implicated in the case or not. In certain
circumstances, there is a possibility that a person may
have been falsely implicated in the case. The judgment
relied on by the learned PL State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan
(supra) is distinguishable on facts because in the aforesaid
judgment the person was tried in two criminal cases. In
one case he was prosecuted for commission of offences
under sections 323, 324, 325, 294, 506-B/34 of Penal
Code, 1860 and other case under sections 452, 394, 395 of
Penal Code, 1860. Certainly commission of offences under
sections 394, 395 of Penal Code, 1860 is serious offence.
The Supreme Court in the matter of State of W.B. v. S.K.
Nazrul Islam , reported in (2011) 10 SCC 184 has
observed in regard to cancellation of appointment of a
Constable on the ground that he had submitted false
information to the effect that criminal case was registered
against him or not as under:
“Surely, the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of
appointing constables were under duty to verify the
antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is
suitable for the post of constable and so long as the
candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case of
the charges under sections 148/323/380/427/596, Penal
Code, 1860, he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for
appointment to the post of constable.”
The Supreme Court further observed in the matter of
Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar passed in
Civil Appeal No. 1430/2007 , as under:
“When the incident happened the respondent must have
been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often
commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often
been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not
expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people.
Hence, our approach should be to condone minor
indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand
them as criminals for the rest of their lives.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
18
Although the matter has been referred by the Supreme
Court to larger Bench but in my opinion, the observations
made in the aforesaid case by the Court are relevant to
decide the controversy involved in this case.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar v. State
of Haryana , reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17 has observed as
under:
“Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw
attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the
large many cases which per law and public policy are tried
summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people
through out the country appearing before summary Courts
and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as
a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost along them being
traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Penal
Code, 1860, mostly committed by the young and/or the
inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind
and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining
is the end of the career, future or present, as the case may
be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a
blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be
staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial
measures are therefore necessary in raising the toleration
limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried
summarily. Provision need be made that punishment of
fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs. 2000/- or so, on a
summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as
conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry
into and retention in government service. This can brook
no delay, whatsoever.”
From the observation made by the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid cases, it is clear that life of the young person to
get the job could not be jeopardise merely on the ground
that a criminal case was registered against him.
In the present case the petitioner has been acquitted from
the offence after trial. The trial Court specifically observed
that false implication of the petitioner in the case cannot
be not ruled out. As per facts of the criminal case, in which
the petitioner was prosecuted there was a quarrel between
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
19
the parties and thereafter FIR was lodged. A counter case
was also lodged against the complainant party.
Regulation 64 of Madhya Pradesh Police reads as under:
64. General Condition of Service. — ………..
*
From the facts of the case, conclusion cannot be drawn
that the petitioner was not suitable candidate to be
appointed in police service.
In my opinion, the authority did not consider the case of
the petitioner in proper perspective and rejected the
candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that the
petitioner was tried for commission of offence. This
approach of the authority is not proper.
Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed. The impugned order dated 24-3-2015, (Ann. P-5)
is hereby quashed. It is ordered that the petitioner be given
appointment on the post of Subedar, Sub-Inspector cadre
and Platoon Commander in pursuance to his selection
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt or
copy of this order. The petitioner shall not be eligible to
receive arrears of salary but he shall be entitled to get
benefit of seniority and other benefits from the date of his
initial appointment on which date other persons were
appointed in pursuance to same selection to the post of
Subedar, Sub-Inspector cadre and Platoon Commander.
No order as to costs.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
23. Hence, tested on the anvil of Kailash Chandra Sirvi (supra) , the
foundational premise of the respondents that the petitioner’s acquittals in 2005
and 2008 in petty IPC offences Sections 294, 323, 341, 506-B/34 IPC involved
moral turpitude or rendered him inherently unfit for police service is wholly
unsustainable in law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
20
24. Now, coming to the principal ground on which the impugned
removal orders rest, namely, that the petitioner failed to mention Crime No.
42/2003 and Crime No. 282/2006 in his 2011 Constable application and
Attestation Form, the law governing non-disclosure of past criminal cases in
verification forms has been comprehensively expounded by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ,
(2024) 5 SCC 264.
25. In Ravindra Kumar (supra) , the appellant therein had applied for
the post of Constable, was subsequently implicated in a criminal case under
Sections 324, 352 and 504 IPC and was acquitted prior to filing his character
verification affidavit when witnesses turned hostile and a compromise memo
was filed in respect of Section 504 IPC. Thereafter, in his verification
affidavit, the appellant wrote ‘No’ and ‘Zero’ against specific columns asking
whether any criminal case had ever been registered against him or whether he
had been acquitted or discharged in any case. Despite a favourable verification
report from the local police station and the Superintendent of Police certifying
his character as good, his selection was cancelled for filing a false affidavit
and suppressing the criminal case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court posed the
precise legal issue as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
21
“ 1. The vexed question is back again. Is it a hard-and-fast and
a cut-and-dried rule that, in all circumstances, non-
disclosure of a criminal case (in which the candidate is
acquitted) in the verification form is fatal for the candidate’s
employment? We think not and it ought not to be so too.
Fortunately, we have a judicial chorus supporting our view.
Each case will turn on the special facts and circumstances.
We have endeavoured to analyse the applicable precedents
and have followed those line of cases, which have a striking
similarity to the facts at hand.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
26. Analyzing the three Judge Bench decision in Avtar Singh v. Union
of India , (2016) 8 SCC 471 (specifically Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, and 38.1 to
38.11), along with Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar , (2011) 4 SCC
644 ; Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. , (2011) 14 SCC 709 ; Pawan Kumar v.
Union of India , (2023) 12 SCC 317 ; Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra ,
(2019) 17 SCC 696 and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India , (2023) 7
SCC 536 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar (supra) reiterated
the governing principles:-
i. First, as held in Para 35 of Avtar Singh (supra) , Suppression of
material information presupposes that what is suppressed that
matters not every technical or trivial matter. It has been observed
that though a person who has suppressed the material information
cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in
service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
22
of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due
regard to facts of cases.
ii. Second, as held in Para 36 and Para 38.4.1 of Avtar Singh (supra) ,
for lower posts such as Constable, the nature of the post, nature of
duties and impact of suppression on suitability must be objectively
considered and in a trivial/petty case which if disclosed would not
have rendered an incumbent unfit for the post in question, the
employer may condone the lapse.
iii. Third, as laid down in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (supra) , 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.
iv. Fourth, in Paragraph 32 and Paragraph 34 of Ravindra Kumar
(supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court crystallized the mandatory
factors that must enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability
and relief:-
“ 32. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the
criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgment
of acquittal; the nature of the query in the
application/verification form; the contents of the
character verification reports; the socio-economic strata
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
23
of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the
candidate; the nature of consideration and the contents of
the cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial
aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in
adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of
relief to be ordered.
*
34. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special
circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non-
disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too
ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our
opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think
it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing
every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust
and the same will tantamount to being completely
oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great,
vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the
facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the
court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective
criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide.
It can never be a one size fits all scenario.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
27. When the facts of the instant case are examined on the objective
touchstone of the eight parameters enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Paragraph 32 of Ravindra Kumar (supra) , several compelling features
emerge.
28. The petitioner hails from a small village and belongs to the OBC
category. Given his date of birth of 10.09.1985, he was merely 17 to 18 years
old when Crime No. 42/2003 was registered in early 2003 and 20 years old
when Crime No. 282/2006 was registered in August, 2006 during a college
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
24
dispute while he was serving as College President. As observed by the
Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra) and reaffirmed in Ravindra
Kumar (supra) , minor indiscretions at such a young age cannot be used to
brand a youth as a criminal for the rest of his life or become an albatross
around his neck.
29. Furthermore, both cases involved minor, non-heinous offences
under Sections 294, 323, 341 and 506-B/34 of the IPC. Indeed, Prosecution
Witness No. 6 (CSP Karnik Shrivastava) who conducted the Preliminary
Enquiry, admitted in his cross-examination that the offences registered against
the petitioner in 2003 and 2006 were not grave offences and for that reason,
were not even entered in the CSP office’s Digest Register. It is not out of place
to note that the petitioner was acquitted in Crime No. 42/2003 in 2005 and in
Crime No. 282/2006 in 2008, i.e., six years and three years, respectively,
before the petitioner applied for the post of Constable on 10.01.2011. On the
date of his application, i.e., 10.01.2011 and Attestation Form, i.e., 04.03.2011,
not a single criminal case was pending against him in any police station or
court of law.
30. Unlike cases of total, brazen concealment, in Column 12(a) of the
Attestation Form dated 04.03.2011, the petitioner explicitly wrote ‘Yes’ ,
thereby, putting the scrutinizing authority on notice that he had been subjected
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
25
to legal/preventive proceedings. The petitioner further mentioned Istgasa No.
212/06 u/s 107, 116(3) Cr.P.C. which had been registered in 2006 and wrote
‘Yes’ against the column asking whether he had been acquitted. The
explanation of the petitioner that as a first time rural applicant filling out the
form at the SP office, he believed concluded acquittals did not constitute
subsisting criminal cases or could not fit in the narrow column space and that
he subsequently disclosed every single case upfront when applying for the
Sub-Inspector examination in 2017, demonstrates the absence of any
deliberate fraudulent design.
31. Just as in Ravindra Kumar (supra) , the local police station
conducted an independent character verification in March, 2011 from its
official crime registers and Village Crime Notebook Parts 2 and 3 and certified
on 10.03.2011 that apart from Istgasa No. 212/06, no criminal case was
registered or pending against the petitioner and that he bore good character.
This report was endorsed by the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat on
16.03.2011 and accepted by the Special Branch, PHQ Bhopal on 15.04.2011.
As admitted by PW-1 (Acting Inspector Premlal Shivvanshi) during cross-
examination in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner cannot be blamed for
the verification reports submitted by the SHOs of P.S. Gramin and P.S.
Kotwali in 2011.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
26
32. In Ravindra Kumar (supra) , Ram Kumar (supra) , and Pawan
Kumar (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted relief even to recruits
whose candidatures were cancelled at the threshold before or shortly after
joining training. The petitioner here stands on a far stronger footing. He was
appointed on 30.05.2011, confirmed in service and discharged his duties as a
Constable for over 10 years until 24.11.2021 with such dedication and
discipline that he was awarded 119 rewards against only one minor censure.
Moreover, he proved his merit by clearing the competitive Sub-Inspector
examination in 2017. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner is
unfit to perform police duty before society is completely belied by the
department’s own record of rewarding him 119 times over a decade of active
police service.
33. A perusal of the sequence of events lends credence to the petitioner’s
grievance that the disciplinary proceedings and the suo motu revision were
pursued mechanically and arbitrarily. When respondent No. 5 (SP, Balaghat)
removed the petitioner from service on 24.11.2021, the Appellate Authority,
i.e., respondent No. 4 (DIG, Balaghat Range) examined the matter in appeal
and vide order dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) took a balanced and
proportionate view by setting aside the removal order, reinstating the
petitioner in service and imposing a punishment of reduction of pay by one
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
27
annual increment with cumulative effect on the principle of “No work No
pay” . However, within just seven days of the appellate order, on 21.03.2022,
respondent No. 3 (ADGP, Balaghat Zone) initiated a suo motu revision
(Annexure P-8) and on 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-10) mechanically restored the
extreme penalty of removal from service purely on a rigid reading of GOP No.
78/97 without adverting to the parameters of Avtar Singh (supra) or the
petitioner’s 10 years of meritorious service.
34. The argument raised by the respondents that because the petitioner
did not challenge the DIG’s appellate order dated 14.03.2022 before a higher
authority, he must be deemed to have accepted his guilt and therefore, cannot
assail his subsequent revisional removal is wholly misconceived. An
employee who accepts a reduced penalty of stoppage of one increment under
an appellate reinstatement order in order to secure his livelihood and return to
duty does not forfeit his right under Article 226 of the Constitution to
challenge a subsequent suo motu revisional order that takes away his very
employment.
35. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of
U.P. (supra) , Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (supra) and Ravindra Kumar
v. State of U.P. (supra) , government instructions or recruitment clauses
providing for cancellation or termination upon non-disclosure cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
28
applied mechanically by a stroke of pen divorced from the duty of the
authority to objectively assess whether the nature of the concluded criminal
case and the alleged omission truly render the employee unsuitable for
continuing in service. In the facts of the present case, where the two minor
cases occurred when the petitioner was a teenager/college student, both ended
in acquittal years prior to his 2011 recruitment, the petitioner answered ‘Yes’
in Column 12(a) of the Attestation Form while mentioning the connected
preventive case, the local police stations cleared his verification in 2011 and
he rendered over 10 years of commendable service earning 119 rewards, the
impugned suo motu revisional notice dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure P-8), the
revisional removal order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-10) and the DGP’s
order dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure P-12) are manifestly arbitrary,
disproportionate and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
36. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds with the following
direction:-
i. The impugned suo motu revisional show-cause notice dated
21.03.2022 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No. 3 (Additional
Director General of Police, Balaghat Zone, Balaghat), the impugned
revisional termination order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-10)
passed by respondent No. 3 and the impugned order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86344
W.P. No. 10238-2023
29
04.07.2022 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No. 2 (Director
General of Police, Madhya Pradesh) are hereby quashed and set
aside.
ii. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service
forthwith on the post of Constable.
iii. While the petitioner shall not be entitled to actual arrears of back
wages for the period during which he remained out of service, he
shall be entitled to continuity of service and all notional and
consequential benefits, including notional fixation of pay,
increments and seniority.
37. The writ petition stands allowed .
38. There shall be no order as to costs.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
AL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38