Rahul Jatav vs The Union Of India Through Secretary
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
1 W.A. No.3071/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT APPEAL No. 3071 of 2024
RAHUL JATAV
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
Appearance :
Ms. Amrita Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jitendra Bharat Mehta - Advocate for the
respondents .
Reserved on – 08/05/2026
Post on - 25/06/2026
________________________________________________________
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
2 W.A. No.3071/2024
Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai :
O R D E R
This intra-court Writ Appeal is directed against the
impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court at Indore in Writ Petition No.4019/2024.
2. By the said impugned order, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the actions of the
respondents, thereby upholding the cancellation of the appellant’s
provisional appointment.
3. The appellant had approached the Writ Court praying to
set-aside the termination order dated 22.11.2023, whereby his
provisional offer of appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in
the Border Security Force (BSF) was abruptly cancelled.
4. Furthermore, the appellant sought the quashing of the
subsequent rejection order dated 09.02.2024, by which his
representation for reinstatement, filed following his acquittal in
the criminal trial, was dismissed by the Authorities.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
3 W.A. No.3071/2024
Facts of the Case
5. The appellant is a citizen of India who participated in the
Staff Selection Commission General Duty Exam 2022 and was
successfully selected on merit for the post of Constable (GD).
6. Following his selection, the appellant received an
appointment letter dated 28.08.2023 issued by the Office of the
Inspector General, Central School of Weapons and Tactics, BSF
(CSWT, BSF), Indore.
7. Complying with the directions in the appointment letter,
the appellant joined the CSWT, BSF at Indore Office on
27.10.2023 to undergo training and complete the requisite
enrollment formalities.
8. During the joining and verification formalities, the
appellant truthfully and voluntarily disclosed that a criminal case
was pending against him under Sections 323, 325, 294, and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, registered vide Crime No.762/2022 at
Police Station Kotwali, Shivpuri.
9. On the sole basis of this honest disclosure regarding the
pending criminal trial, the respondents issued an order dated
22.11.2023, terminating the appellant's appointment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
4 W.A. No.3071/2024
10. Barely a week later, on 28.11.2023, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shivpuri, passed a judgment in Criminal Case
No.1152/2022, wherein the prosecution miserably failed to prove
the charges, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant.
11. The appellant subsequently submitted a detailed
representation on 24.01.2024 to the Senior Officials, bringing the
judgment of acquittal to their notice and praying for the
restoration of his appointment.
12. Respondent No.3 arbitrarily rejected this representation
vide order dated 09.02.2024, reasoning that the acquittal was not
"clean" but based on the "benefit of doubt," citing an official
circular memo dated 18.07.2019.
Contentions of the Appellant
13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
is a young boy of 22 years, and the allegedly frivolous criminal
complaint was lodged when he was merely 20 years old.
14. It is fiercely contended that the charges levelled against the
appellant under Sections 323, 325, 294, and 34 of the IPC are not
heinous in nature. The incident arose out of a trivial, sudden
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
5 W.A. No.3071/2024
dispute over sounding a motorcycle horn, lacking any
premeditation or grave criminal intent.
15. The appellant emphasizes that such acts do not involve
moral turpitude, and treating these non-heinous allegations as an
absolute bar to public employment is a disproportionate and
excessively harsh punishment.
16. It is further argued that the appellant did not suppress any
material facts; he honestly furnished the information regarding
the pending case when asked by the employer, and has been
penalized precisely for his transparency.
17. Relying upon settled jurisprudence, the appellant argues
that a candidate should not be deprived of public employment
merely because the trial court used the expression "benefit of
doubt," as the concept of a "clean" or "honorable" acquittal is
unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
18. The appellant submits that in the criminal trial, the
complainant turned completely hostile, and the other witnesses
did not whisper a word against the appellant, which wholly
dismantles the foundation of the criminal charges.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
6 W.A. No.3071/2024
19. Lastly, it is urged that the appellant, hailing from the
lowest rung of society, successfully cleared a highly competitive
exam, and he cannot be punished for the delay in the conclusion
of a trial that ultimately ended in his acquittal.
Contentions of Respondents
20. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently
opposed the arguments advanced by the appellant and supports
the impugned order of learned Writ Court.
Analysis and Conclusion
21. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at
length and meticulously perused the record, including the trial
court's judgment and the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
22. The scope of judicial review in matters of employment
termination and suitability under Article 226 of the Constitution
is well-defined. This Court must evaluate whether the
administrative decision suffers from arbitrariness,
unreasonableness, or misinterpretation of the governing statutory
circulars.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
7 W.A. No.3071/2024
23. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by heavily
quoting and relying upon the policy circular dated 01.02.2012
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The relevant text of the
circular reads as under :-
“Accordingly, the matter has been considered in this
Ministry in consultation with CAPFs, and it has been
decided as follows
I. A candidate is required to declare in the application
form, whether he has been arrested, prosecuted or
convicted by a court for any criminal offence. If a
candidate does not disclose the fact of his/her
involvement and/or arrest in criminal case(s),
complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc. under
IPC or any other Act of the Central or State
Government in the application form, during medical
examination as well as in the attestation/verification
form and the fact subsequently comes to the notice of
recruiting authorities/ is found out from the
verification report received from the District
authorities or otherwise, his candidature/appointment
will be cancelled. However, in case the candidate has
already been appointed, while cancelling/terminating
the appointment, the principle of natural justice shall
be followed and opportunity of being heard would be
accorded to the candidate.
II. If a candidate does not disclose his/ her-
involvement and/or arrest In criminal case(s),
complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc. under
IPC or any other Act of the Central, or State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
8 W.A. No.3071/2024
Government in the application form but discloses the
same during medical examination/PET and on in the
attestation/verification form, in writing, the
candidature will not be cancelled on this ground
alone.
III. The candidate will not be considered for
recruitment if:
a) Such involvement/case/arrest is concerned with an
offence mentioned in Annexure-A
b)-Such arrest/detention is made under any of the
Acts which are concerned with security and integrity
of the country, terrorist and disruptive activities, acts
against the State, Insurgency, etc.;
c) The candidate has been detained under the National
Security Act/Crime Control Act/any similar
legislation, and the same is confirmed by the
Reviewing Authority;
d) Such involvement/case/arrest is concerned with an
offence involving moral turpitude; appeal is pending
against such conviction.
Provided that the candidate shall not be barred in the
above cases, if only an FIR has been registered/ the
case is under investigation and no charges have been
framed either on FIR or on the complaint in any Court
of Law.
Provided further that the candidate shall not be
debarred if he/she has been finally
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
9 W.A. No.3071/2024
acquitted/discharged by a Court, whether an appeal is
pending or not against such acquittal.
Provided further that the candidate shall not be
debarred If the proceedings are withdrawn by the
Central/State Government
Provided further that the candidate shall not be
debarred if he/she has been
involved/convicted/concerned with minor offences
mentioned in Annexure-B or those mentioned in
Chapter VIII & X of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.”
24. Upon a point-wise evaluation of the aforementioned
circular, it is explicitly clear that the appellant's case does not fall
under the penal purview of Clause I. The appellant did not
suppress facts; he had already made a clean and honest disclosure
of the pending case before the authority.
25. Furthermore, Clause II of the circular provides a specific
safeguard, stating that if a candidate discloses their involvement
in the attestation/verification form in writing, the candidature will
not be cancelled on this ground alone. As the appellant had
already specified the case, the strict cancellation mandate cannot
be made applicable to him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
10 W.A. No.3071/2024
26. More importantly, Clause III explicitly stipulates
guidelines for candidates who are "not considered for
recruitment." This implies a pre-appointment stage.
27. In the present factual matrix, Clause III is inapplicable
because the appellant was not merely at the consideration stage;
he had already been appointed, had joined the force, and was
thereafter terminated from service.
28. While this Court is conscious of the fact that the Border
Security Force is a disciplined organization, the employer is also
obligated to evaluate the severity and nature of the charges
levelled against the candidate before concluding that they are
permanently unfit for service.
29. A perusal of the trial court's judgment reveals that the
alleged incident was a sudden, trivial quarrel over a motorcycle
horn. The acts of the appellant and the subsequent charges
levelled under Sections 323, 325, and 294 of the IPC are certainly
not heinous in nature.
30. The offences alleged do not involve premeditated violence,
moral turpitude, or any inherent defect of character that would
render the appellant a threat to the discipline of the force.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
11 W.A. No.3071/2024
Deeming such non-heinous charges as a perpetual bar to
employment is manifestly arbitrary.
31. The sequence of events further reveals that the appellant
was fully acquitted by the competent criminal court on
28.11.2023, which was immediately after his abrupt termination
on 22.11.2023.
32. Looking into the overall facts, circumstances, the non-
heinous nature of the allegations, and the specific sequence of
dates, we find that the learned Single Judge fundamentally erred
in interpreting the circular dated 01.02.2012.
33. The learned Single Judge incorrectly applied recruitment-
stage disqualifications to an already appointed candidate who had
made a clean disclosure, while entirely ignoring the trivial nature
of the underlying dispute.
34. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. No. 4019/2024 is hereby set-aside.
35. Furthermore, the termination order dated 22.11.2023 and
the subsequent rejection order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16840
12 W.A. No.3071/2024
respondents are quashed. The respondents are directed to
reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits.
36. Pending applications, if any, stands closed accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Subodh Abhyankar) (Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge Judge
Aiyer*/PS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 25-06-2026
17:28:34