Employer may reject police candidate for deliberate suppression of acquittal terms and lacking honorable acquittal in moral turpitude cases.

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Driver) through the M.P. Professional Examination Board and was selected after clearing written and physical tests

Before joining, the petitioner submitted an attestation form disclosing a prior criminal case (ST No. 277/2011) but answered 'No' to whether the acquittal was based on benefit of doubt/compromise

Additionally, he submitted an affidavit on 23.04.2018 failing to disclose the case

A Screening Committee found that while the case was mentioned in the form, the acquittal was not "honourable" or "clean" as the petitioner had been acquitted on the benefit of doubt because witnesses failed to identify him

Based on the character verification report, the petitioner was removed from service on 15.11.2018 for suppression of material facts

1. Whether the non-disclosure of the nature of acquittal in the attestation form and the failure to disclose the criminal case in the accompanying affidavit constituted a suppression of material facts warranting termination

2. Whether an acquittal based on the "benefit of doubt" in a case involving charges like rioting and obstructing public servants (u/s 147, 332, 353 IPC) entitles a candidate to appointment in a disciplined force

The court primarily applied the guidelines established in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), which hold that information given to an employer must be true and any suppression regarding criminal antecedents allows the employer to assess suitability

It further relied on Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh (2013) and UT Chandigarh v. Pradeep Kumar (2018), established that "honourable acquittal" is required for police service and that a Screening Committee’s assessment of suitability is final unless mala fide

The Court also referenced State of Rajasthan v. Chetan Jeff (2022), emphasizing that the trust and integrity of a constable are compromised by the suppression of material facts at the threshold

The Court reasoned that although the petitioner mentioned the case in one part of the form, he deliberately misrepresented the nature of his acquittal as "clean" by marking 'No' in the relevant field despite knowing it was based on the benefit of doubt

This intent to suppress was reinforced by the subsequent affidavit where he claimed no criminal cases had ever been registered against him

The Court observed that the underlying offences (stone pelting after an election) involved moral turpitude and were against the public at large, rendering him unsuitable for a disciplined force like the police

Applying the Avtar Singh principles, the Court held that the department conducted an objective assessment via the Screening Committee and correctly concluded that a person who lacks transparency cannot be trusted with the duties of a police personnel

It held that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt is not equivalent to an "honourable acquittal" and does not automatically entitle a person to public employment, especially in a disciplined force

Consequently, the High Court found no illegality in the termination order dated 15.11.2018 or the appellate order dated 06.11.2019 and dismissed the writ petition