MP HC Reinstates Constable Removed For Omitting Two Old, Acquitted Cases After 10 Years’ Service And 119 Rewards

The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in 2011 after character verification.

Before appointment, he had been acquitted in two criminal cases arising from incidents in 2003 and 2006.

In his 2011 application he answered “No” to questions about offences, but in the attestation form he answered “Yes” to a question concerning prior proceedings and identified a preventive proceeding; he did not separately list the two criminal cases.

Police verification reports in 2011 disclosed no other criminal record, and he was appointed after Special Branch clearance.

He served for over ten years and received 119 rewards.

In 2017, while applying for a Sub-Inspector post, he disclosed the cases.

The respondents later initiated disciplinary proceedings, and the Superintendent of Police removed him from service in November 2021.

The Deputy Inspector General modified the penalty and reinstated him in March 2022, but the Additional Director General of Police exercised suo motu revision, restored the removal order, and the Director General of Police dismissed the petitioner’s mercy appeal.

The petitioner challenged those orders under Article 226

Under Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, suppression must concern material information, and an employer must exercise its discretion reasonably and objectively; for lower posts, the nature of the post, the case and the effect of the omission on suitability should be considered, and a trivial matter may be condoned.

Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 5 SCC 264, requires a holistic, fact-specific assessment—including the nature and timing of the case, the acquittal, the wording of the form, verification reports and the candidate’s antecedents—and rejects treating every non-disclosure as automatically disqualifying.

Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, recognises that minor youthful indiscretions may warrant condonation.

The Court also relied on Kailash Chandra Sirvi v. State of M.P., 2016 (4) MPLJ 370, concerning the assessment of acquittals and minor offences in police recruitment.

Accordingly, instructions permitting termination for suppression cannot be applied mechanically, without assessing suitability and proportionality.

The Court considered the two cases minor and non-heinous, arising when the petitioner was 17–20 years old, and noted that both had ended in acquittal years before his Constable recruitment.

Although he did not separately list the cases, he answered “Yes” in the attestation form and disclosed a related preventive proceeding; the Court accepted that this, together with his later disclosure during the 2017 recruitment, did not demonstrate a deliberate fraudulent design.

The 2011 police and Special Branch verification reports were favourable, and the petitioner’s decade of service, including 119 rewards, weighed against a finding that he was unsuitable.

Applying the fact-specific approach in Ravindra Kumar and the proportionality principle, the Court held that restoring removal solely on a rigid reading of GOP No. 78/97 was arbitrary and disproportionate.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as a Constable.

He was denied actual back wages but granted continuity of service and notional consequential benefits, including pay fixation, increments and seniority.