Subsequent acquittal does not mitigate termination for deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents in police recruitment.

The Appellant was appointed as a Constable (Driver) in the Madhya Pradesh Police on 04.07.2012.

Prior to his appointment, multiple criminal cases (Crime No. 309/2008 and 13/2009) had been registered against him due to matrimonial disputes.

In his verification form and sworn affidavit dated 28.01.2012, the Appellant declared himself unmarried, denied having children, and stated "nil" regarding any registered criminal cases.

Following a departmental enquiry that proved these suppressions, the Appellant was terminated from service.

His departmental appeals and a subsequent writ petition (W.P. No. 25524/2024) were dismissed.

The Appellant filed this intra-court appeal arguing that his subsequent acquittal in 2022 and the fact that a 2014 enquiry had exonerated him of a "second marriage" charge should nullify the termination.

1. Whether the subsequent acquittal in criminal cases and the dissolution of marriage mitigate the deliberate suppression of material facts at the time of recruitment.

2. Whether the termination of a police constable for misrepresentation in the verification form is legally sustainable under the M.P. Police Regulations.

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the character and integrity of candidates in disciplined forces as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, which mandates that a candidate must exhibit utmost rectitude and that suppression of criminal antecedents is a valid ground for termination.

It also relied on Rule 53(C) and Regulation 57 of the M.P. Police Regulations, which emphasize the requirement of impeccable character for police personnel, and Regulations 226 and 241 regarding departmental penalties and the effect of acquittals.

The Court reasoned that the fundamental issue was not the ultimate outcome of the criminal cases (acquittal) or the status of the marriage, but the "initial fraud" committed by the Appellant to secure employment.

Documentary evidence from 28.01.2012 proved that the Appellant knowingly filed a false affidavit by claiming to be unmarried and concealing the registration of Crime No. 309/2008.

The Court held that for a disciplined force like the police, such misrepresentation constitutes grave misconduct.

The Bench clarified that an acquittal does not "cure, mitigate, or obliterate" the act of suppression because the employer’s right to terminate is based on the candidate's lack of trustworthiness and integrity at the threshold of service.

Consequently, the Court found no proportionality error or violation of natural justice in the departmental proceedings.

The Division Bench upheld the order of the Learned Single Judge, dismissed the Writ Appeal, and affirmed the termination of the Appellant.

No order as to costs was made.