### Acquittal in Matrimonial Disputes Does Not Bar Compassionate Appointment to Police Services Absent Moral Turpitude

The petitioner’s father, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Madhya Pradesh Police, died in harness on October 23, 2022

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment as a Constable, explicitly disclosing the pendency of two criminal cases in his attestation form and affidavit

Despite this disclosure, Respondent No. 4 rejected his application due to the pending litigation. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in both cases (Crime No. 506/2021 and a second case decided on April 24, 2025) which arose from a matrimonial dispute involving his brother and sister-in-law

Despite these acquittals, the respondents repeatedly declined to reconsider his claim, citing earlier decisions of the Scrutiny Committee

The State contended that the offenses were serious and that acquittal based on witnesses turning hostile (not a "clean acquittal") does not create an automatic right to join a disciplined force

1. Whether the pendency of criminal cases, or an acquittal resulting from a compromise/hostile witnesses in a matrimonial dispute, renders a candidate ineligible for compassionate appointment where there was no suppression of facts?

2. Whether the Scrutiny Committee’s refusal to reconsider the petitioner's appointment post-acquittal was legally sustainable under Article 226?

The Court primarily relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-8935 of 2022), which established that a candidate should not be denied an appointment for a post (such as Constable) based on a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute under Section 498A IPC, especially when the facts were duly disclosed and the trial resulted in acquittal

Conversely, the Court distinguished cases cited by the State, such as Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh and State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan, which involve either the suppression of material facts or convictions for crimes of moral turpitude

The Court observed that the petitioner acted with transparency by disclosing the criminal cases at the threshold, thereby negating any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation

Upon reviewing the Trial Court's judgment, the Court found that the criminal charges stemmed from a domestic matrimonial dispute where witnesses turned hostile following a settlement

The High Court reasoned that these offenses did not involve "moral turpitude" and were not of a nature that would fundamentally disqualify a candidate once acquitted

Applying the logic of Pramod Singh Kirar, the Court held that since the incident arose from family discord and ended in acquittal/settlement, the State's mechanical reliance on the Scrutiny Committee’s previous rejection—without considering the changed circumstances of the acquittal—was arbitrary

The Court quashed the impugned orders (Annexures P-1, P-2, and P-3) and directed the respondents to proceed with the petitioner’s compassionate appointment to the post of Constable

The respondents were ordered to comply within two months, clarifying that the petitioner would be entitled to benefits only from the date of actual appointment on the principle of "no work, no pay"