Equivalent Citations

2016 SCC ONLINE MP 9809 . 2016 MP LJ 4 370 .

Kailash Chandra Sirvi v. State Of M.P. And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Aug 24, 2016)

CASE NO.

W.P No. 2778 of 2015

ADVOCATES

For petitioner: L.C Patne

For respondent/State: Sanjay Karanjwala
JUDGES

S.C Sharma, J.

IMPORTANT PARAS

1. 10. The stand of the State Government that the petitioner is not fit to serve the police
department as Sub Inspector seems to be ridiculous. The petitioner is already a member
of police force and if he can serve the police department on the post of Constable, he can
very well serve on post of Sub Inspector of Police in the police department.

SUMMARY

Facts:

The petitioner, who has been serving as a Constable in the Madhya Pradesh police
department since August 3, 2007, participated in the Sub Inspector Examination in 2013
following an advertisement for the position. However, on March 23, 2015, the Screening
Committee disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Sub Inspector based on a
prior criminal case under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), despite the
petitioner being acquitted of the charges on June 8, 2012. The Screening Committee
concluded that the petitioner was not fit for the position due to the criminal case, which
had been resolved in his favor.
Legal Issues:

1. Whether the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case negates the grounds for
disqualification from the post of Sub Inspector.

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 1 of 17

2. The implications of moral turpitude on the eligibility for public service positions,
particularly in law enforcement.
3. The interpretation of the rules governing the recruitment of police personnel concerning
criminal antecedents and acquittals.
Arguments:

Petitioner?s Argument:

The petitioner contends that an acquittal, regardless of the circumstances, should render
him eligible for appointment. The petitioner argues that the Screening Committee? s
decision is arbitrary and unjust, as acquittal signifies that the prosecution failed to prove its
case beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner also highlights that the law does not
differentiate between types of acquittals and maintains that the previous criminal charges
do not reflect his character or suitability for the position.

Respondent?s Argument:

The respondents argue that the petitioner? s acquittal was not "honourable" and that the
nature of the charges under Section 498-A reflects moral turpitude, which disqualifies him
from holding a position in the police force. They assert that the police service demands a
high degree of morality and integrity, which the petitioner allegedly does not possess due
to the prior charges.
Court?s Analysis:

The court opines that an acquittal effectively wipes out the charges against an individual,
irrespective of the nature of the acquittal. It emphasizes that there is no legal distinction in
criminal jurisprudence between a "clean acquittal," "honourable acquittal," and "acquittal
based on giving benefit of doubt." The court further notes that the mere registration of a
criminal case should not preclude an individual from employment, especially when the
case has been resolved in their favor.
The court also references previous judgments, indicating that the character of an applicant
should not be judged solely based on past allegations, particularly when those allegations
have not been substantiated in court. The court finds that the Screening Committee? s
decision was arbitrary and did not adequately consider the legal implications of the
petitioner?s acquittal.
Conclusion:

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the Screening Committee's findings
were unjustified. The petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the position of Sub Inspector,
along with all consequential benefits, including seniority and increments, although back
wages are not awarded. The court ordered compliance within 90 days, failing which the
petitioner would be entitled to back wages from the date of appointment of similarly

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 2 of 17

situated candidates.
Order:

The writ petition is allowed with costs amounting to Rs. 10,000. The decision of the
Screening Committee is set aside, and the petitioner is to be reinstated with the
aforementioned benefits.
Key Takeaway:

An acquittal in a criminal case eliminates the grounds for disqualification from public
service positions, and the recruitment process must be conducted in a manner that respects
the legal principles surrounding acquittals and the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT

Shri L.C Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Karanjwala, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by order dated 23-3-2015 passed by Deputy
Inspector General of Police (Security), Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal by which the petitioner
has been disqualified from holding the post of Sub Inspector on the ground that the
petitioner was subjected to a criminal case even though he has been acquitted by judgment
of acquittal dated 8-6-2012.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was serving on
the post of Constable in the police department of State of Madhya Pradesh since 3-8-2007.
It has been further stated that an advertisement was issued inviting application for the post
of Sub Inspector and the petitioner has participated in the Sub Inspector Examination 2013.
At the time the petitioner has submitted his application form, he has disclosed the factum
of registration of FIR in which he was involved i.e FIR No. 353/2009 and finally a
criminal case was registered against the petitioner i.e Criminal Case No. 790/2009 for an
offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was acquitted
vide judgment of acquittal dated 8-6-2012.
3. The petitioner has further stated that he was permitted to participate in the process of
selection and the result was declared on 17-12-2014. To the utter surprise of the petitioner,
a letter was issued by the respondents on 11-3-2015 wherein the petitioner was informed
that he is required to be present on 17-3-2015 before the Screening Committee for
character verification.
4. The petitioner did appear before the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee
has passed an order dated 23-3-2015 holding that the petitioner is not entitled for
appointment to the post of Sub Inspector. The order passed by the respondents reveal that
the petitioner, because a criminal case was registered against him in which he has been
acquitted for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, is not a fit person
to hold the post of Sub Inspector of Police .

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 3 of 17

5. The petitioner's prayer is that as he has been acquitted in respect of offence under
section 498- A of Indian Penal Code , he is certainly entitled to hold the post of Sub
Inspector of Police . He further submits that the petitioner is already serving the police
department as a Constable and if he can serve the police department as Constable he can
very well serve the police department as a Sub Inspector also.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued before this Court that
the order passed by the respondent does not warrant any interference by this Court as the
petitioner was involved in a case for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code. It has been further stated that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the
reasonable doubts and the petitioner was not acquitted on merits and therefore, he is not
entitled for selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police .
7. Learned counsel for the respondents have also stated that as per the M.P Police
Regulation, a person who has applied for police recruitment should behave in pleasant
manner and his past life should be without any blemish and therefore, he cannot be
appointed on the post of Sub Inspector as the petitioner has demanded dowry and
therefore, an offence under section 498- A of Indian Penal Code was registered against
him. Hence, the question of appointing the petitioner because a criminal case was
registered against him, does not arise. Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
9. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as
Constable in the year 2007 to be more specific on 3-8-2007 and while he was serving
police department, a FIR was registered against the petitioner i.e FIR No. 353/2009 and
subsequently a criminal trial also took place in Criminal Case No. 790/2009 for an offence
under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
10. The stand of the State Government that the petitioner is not fit to serve the police
department as Sub Inspector seems to be ridiculous. The petitioner is already a member of
police force and if he can serve the police department on the post of Constable, he can
very well serve on post of Sub Inspector of Police in the police department.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court an acquittal is an acquittal . There is no such
distinction between acquittal on merits and acquittal on the basis of benefits of doubt.
12. Such type of controversy has already been considered by this Court in the case of
Manish Verma v. State of M.P in Writ Petition No. 3560/2014 decided on 16-10-2014. It
is pertinent to note that Manish Verma was also involved in an offence under section 498-
A of Indian Penal Code . He was also denied appointment to the post of Constable and
this Court has allowed the writ petition preferred by Manish Verma.
13. This Court in the case of Manish Verma has passed the following order:—
“A similar controversy regarding interpretation of acquittal came up before this Court and
this Court in the case of Rakesh Sharma v. State of M.P, W.P No. 9913/2012 and in the

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 4 of 17

aforesaid case this Court has held as under:—
“The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on
the post of Constable General Duty. Petitioner is also aggrieved by order dt. 13-7-2012 by
which the Inspector General of Police has rejected the claim of the petitioner.
In the present case, the petitioner has participated in the process of selection for the post of
Constable in the year 2012 and has also submitted a police verification form stating
categorically therein that he has been acquitted in S.T No. 196/2007 on 14-2-2008. The
petitioner by virtue of his merit was selected for the post of Constable, however, the
appointing Authority as well as the Inspector General of Police have rejected the
petitioner's claim for appointment even though he is more meritorious and persons who are
less meritorious have been appointed to the post of Constable General Duty. The only
reason assigned in the return is that the petitioner as he has been acquitted by giving
benefit of doubt in respect of Crime No. 126/2006, cannot be appointed to the post of
Constable General Duty.
Learned counsel for the respondents- State has drawn attention of this Court towards
paragraph 53 of the M.P Police Regulations and his contention is that a person who is
seeking appointment on the post of a Constable should bear a good moral character and
therefore, as the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under sections 302, 147, 148 and
149 of the Indian Penal Code, he does not bear good moral character, hence the order
passed by the Inspector General of Police does not warrant any interference.
This Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner has been acquitted, the
entire crime registered against him stands wiped out. An acquittal is an acquittal whether
it is a “ clean acquittal ”, whether it is “honourable acquittal ” or “ acquittal based on
giving benefit of doubt”. The “clean acquittal ”, the “honourable acquittal ” or “acquittal
based on giving benefit of doubt” has not been distinguished in the Code of Criminal
Procedure. This Court in the case of Panna Mehta… Applicant; v. State Of M.P…. ,
reported in 2003 (1) M.P.L.J 370 : 2002 (4) M.P.H.T 226 in paragraphs 11 and 12 held as
under:—
“11. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Evidence Act or any other
enactment, the word, “ acquittal ” has not been defined. As per the Law Lexicon, the
Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary (Edn. 1992) “Acquittal ” defined, Act X of 1882, section
403, “the word acquittal is verbum equivocum and may in ordinary language be used to
express either the verdict of a jury, or the formal judgment of the Court, that the prisoner is
not guilty”. (Per Tindal, C.J, Burgess v. Boetefeur, 13 LJMC 126 : 135 ER 193 ). It is
generally said that a party is acquitted by the jury, but in fact, the acquittal is by the
judgment of the Court (ibid). According to the Oxford Dictionary, “acquittal ” means that
a person is not guilty of a crime, with which he has been charged. So in a criminal
jurisprudence there is no difference between “clean acquittal ”, “honourable acquittal ” or
“ acquittal based on giving benefit of doubt”. When the accused is acquitted by giving
benefit of doubt means the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond doubt.

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 5 of 17

12. As ruled by the Supreme Court in case of Manni Lal v. Parmai Lal, AIR 1971 SC 330
and Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P, AIR 1976 SC 133, order of acquittal means a
person concerned, has not committed the offence for which he was charged and tried.
Criminal Courts are recording acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt given to the accused does not mean that
the accused was involved in the case but the same could not be proved by the prosecution.
In Criminal Law, words “beyond reasonable doubt” cannot be termed as stigma or proof of
any criminal charge against acquitted accused. Therefore, petition for expunging the same
is not maintainable under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code and the same is
misconceived.”
In light of the aforesaid order as the petitioner was acquitted on 9-12-2013 and the
character verification took place on 30-1-2014, the question of denying appointment to the
petitioner does not arise.
The writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner and if his name finds place in the merit list, the respondents shall issue a
consequential appointment order. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential
benefits including the seniority, grant of increments, notional fixation of salary as well as
promotion etc. However, will not be entitled for backwages. The respondents will not deny
the appointment to the petitioner only because he was involved in a criminal case as he has
been acquitted, vide judgment of acquittal dated 9-12-2013.”
14. The judgment passed by this Court was subjected to judicial scrutiny as the State
Government being dissatisfied by the verdict of this Court preferred a writ appeal. The
Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ appeal i.e Writ Appeal No. 73/2015
has passed the following order on 28-7-2015:—
“By this writ appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand
Nyapith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated
16-10-2014 passed in W.P No. 3560/14(S) whereby the petition has been allowed.
02. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent Manish Verma had applied
for the post of Police Constable and participated in the Police Constable Recruitment Test
of 2012 conducted by respondent M.P Professional Examination Board and he had stated
on affidavit that there was a matter for offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code
pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ujjain. He qualified for the second
round and passed the medical test. In the meantime he was acquitted from the case pending
against him and hence he filed another affidavit to the concerned authority that he had been
acquitted but the respondent Professional Board depending on Government Circular No. F.
17-74/2002.C-a dated 5th June, 2003 rejected his appointment since he was involved in an
offence of moral turpitude. Being aggrieved by the non- selection respondent Shri Verma
filed a WP bearing No. 356Q/14(S) whereby it was vehemently urged that a character
verification was given by the committee constituted as per guidelines prescribed in the
Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 4842/13 SLP No. 38886/12,
Commissioner of Delhi v. Meharsingh which had held that if the acquittal in a criminal

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 6 of 17

case was not honourable only then the eligibility would be affected and that the candidate
would not be eligible for the police service in which high level of morality is essential.
03. Counsel for the appellant/State has contended that despite having considered the said
case, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Professional
Board to issue the consequential appointment order if he was otherwise eligible according
to the merit list and the respondent Board could not deny appointment to the petitioner
only because he was involved in the criminal case as he has been acquitted vide judgment
of acquittal dated 9-12-2013. Counsel submitted that such a finding was contrary to the
facts of the case and Counsel placed reliance on Commissioner of Delhi (supra) as well as
the another judgment by the Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P v. Parvez Khan ,
Civil Appeal No. 10613 of 2014 to bolster his submissions. Counsel vehemently urged the
fact that the respondent was charged with offence under section 498- A of the Indian
Penal Code and the acquittal was not honourable and the police service is a unit force
which requires a high degree of morality and integrity and hence the petitioner cannot be
considered for appointment.
04. Moreover Counsel submitted that the case of the respondent has been considered by a
duly constituted screening committee and a full opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner and it was the ground of moral turpitude that he is not eligible for the police
service. Counsel placed reliance on a Circular of the Government dated 5-6-2003 whereby
there is a bar for consideration of such person and offence under section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code has been included in the scheduled offences of moral turpitude at SI. No. 11
and the Circular has been filed as Annexure A/2 along with the present appeal and Counsel
prayed that the learned Single Judge had erred in coming to the conclusion that the
acquittal was honourable and that the petitioner was entitled to the appointment. The
findings of the Screening Committee were final in this regard and placing reliance on
Meher Singh (supra) Counsel submitted that there was no mala fides in the proceedings of
the Screening Committee and it cannot be assailed in the light of Meher Singh. The Apex
Court had also held that the High Court was not justified in interfering while the order of
rejecting of the respondent of recruitment of the police service and in this light also
Counsel prayed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside.
05. Per Contra Counsel for the respondent Manish Verma has vehemently urged the fact
that in the matter of Rakesh Sharma v. State of M.P in W.P No. 9913/2012 considered by
the learned Single Judge and other cases it was considered that nothing has been
suppressed by the respondent Shri Verma and in the police verification form also quite
categorically stated that the case was pending against him and subsequently it has resulted
in an acquittal . The acquittal is a clean acquittal and hence no interference is called for
in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Moreover Counsel submitted that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the wife had also stated that she had no
objection if the applicant was considered for the appointment primarily since the
matrimonial dispute had been compromised and they were now living together as man and
wife, Counsel prayed that the appeal was without merit and the same be dismissed.

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 7 of 17

06. On considering the above submissions, we find that the proceedings of the Screening
Committee are not barred from judicial scrutiny. The learned Single Judge has come to the
conclusion that the proceedings were arbitrary and the acquittal has been honourable.
Then under these circumstances we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Moreover even if the testimony of the wife is
considered she has categorically stated in trial Court during the trial that at the time of
marriage no dowry was demanded and she has also admitted in impugned paras 12 and 13
of her deposition that the applicant was without a job and she wanted to reside separately
with him and the compromise had been arrived at during the period of trial itself.
Moreover she has stated so before this Court also. Then under these circumstances, we find
that only question that remains to be considered is whether offence under section 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code would be one of moral turpitude and the acquittal of the accused
has been honourable ?
07. On considering the above submissions and the record we find that the Counsel for the
appellants has very vehemently urged the fact that the findings of the Screening Committee
could not have been assailed in the writ petition since it was specially constituted body and
had considered the case in accordance with the provisions of law. And he relied on the
cases of Pervez Khan and Mehar Singh (supra), however we find that even in the said case,
the Court had held in impugned para-29 that the Screening committee's proceedings have
been assailed as being arbitrary, unguided and unfettered. The Apex Court had also
considered the fact that the acquittal of Mehar Singh was based on the compromise,
however, disclosure was not made in the said case regarding the enmity and other
important facts i.e Mehar Singh had other criminal cases also recorded against him and in
this regard the Apex Court had come to the conclusion that the acquittal was not
honourable. Whereas in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would
be difficult to hold that the acquittal of the respondent Shri Verma was otherwise. On
scrutinising the evidence available on record, we find that in the judgment of acquittal , the
learned Judge of the trial Court has categorically stated that the demand was not for dowry
but a loan had been availed by the respondent and hence the prosecution case had not been
established and the accused had been acquitted since the ingredients of offence under
section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code were not fulfilled; then under these
circumstances it would be difficult to hold that the acquittal was not honourable.
08. Consequently we find that the findings of the Screening Committee are open to
scrutiny and the learned Single Judge has very correctly considered the evidence on record
and to do substantial justice between the parties arrived at the conclusion that the acquittal
was not tainted. Moreover the respondent's wife Smt. Verma has also appeared before this
Court as well as the trial Court and stated that she was now amicably residing with the
respondent Shri Verma and the criminal cases had been compromised and withdrawn.
Considering the fact that the compromise was also before the Screening Committee, it
ought to have properly interpreted the principles laid down by the Apex Court.
Undoubtedly the Screening Committee had to carry out the object of the comprehensive
policy of the State and the scheme referred to above and since admittedly the police

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 8 of 17

services demand a high standard of morality; but in the present case to our mind it would
be improper to hold that the acquittal was not honourable since there is categoric finding
by the trial Court that the respondent Shri Verma was not guilty of the offence of demand
of dowry. In these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge since in the present case the husband and wife have
reconciled each other after being estranged over matrimonial disputes and it was also in the
interest of general public that the matrimonial disputes are required to be settled amicably
and the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the appointment if the respondent
Shri Verma is otherwise eligible would go far away in cementing the matrimonial chords
and strengthening the institution of marriage. In this light also no fault can be found with
the judgment impugned and it does not call for any interference. The appeal is without
merit and the same is dismissed as such.”
15. Thereafter, the matter has travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has again dismissed the Special Leave Petition i.e SLP(C) No. 592/2015,
State of M.P v. Manish Verma on 18-1-2016. Meaning thereby, the view taken by this
Court in the case of Manish Verma has been upheld by the Division Bench and has not
been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The State Government has appointed
Manish Verma by order dated 23-6-2016.
16. The petitioner in the present case stands on better footing than Manish Verma who was
a candidate from open market, whereas the petitioner in the present case is already serving
the police department and as also stated earlier if the petitioner can serve the police
department on the post of Constable, he can very well serve the police department on the
post of Sub Inspector of Police in light of the judgment delivered by this Court.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by
this Court in the case of Pushpendra Mishra v. State of M.P in Writ Petition No.
5795/2015 decided on 19-8-2015 [2015 MPLJ Online 1]. The learned Single Judge in the
aforesaid judgment has held as under:
“The authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Constable on the ground that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner.
However, authority did not consider the merit of the criminal case. The authority has also
not taken into consideration the fact that a counter case was also registered against the
complainant party. The petitioner and complainant party are neighbour. The offences are
minor in nature. The trial Court already observed that the story put- forth by the
prosecution is suspicious. It is a fact that a person who has criminal antecedents cannot be
appointed in the police department. However, it has also to be taken into consideration
that whether a person was falsely implicated in the case or not. In certain circumstances,
there is a possibility that a person may have been falsely implicated in the case. The
judgment relied on by the learned PL State of M.P v. Parvez Khan (supra) is
distinguishable on facts because in the aforesaid judgment the person was tried in two
criminal cases. In one case he was prosecuted for commission of offences under sections
323, 324, 325, 294, 506-B/34 of Indian Penal Code and other case under sections 452,

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 9 of 17

394, 395 of Indian Penal Code. Certainly commission of offences under sections 394,
395 of Indian Penal Code is serious offence. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of
W.B v. S.K Nazrul Islam , reported in ( 2011) 10 SCC 184 has observed in regard to
cancellation of appointment of a Constable on the ground that he had submitted false
information to the effect that criminal case was registered against him or not as under:
“Surely, the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing constables were
under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the
post of constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case
of the charges under sections 148/323/380/427/596, Indian Penal Code, he cannot
possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of constable.”
The Supreme Court further observed in the matter of Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep
Kumar passed in Civil Appeal No. 1430/2007, as under:
“When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that
age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been
condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a
manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions
made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.”
Although the matter has been referred by the Supreme Court to larger Bench but in my
opinion, the observations made in the aforesaid case by the Court are relevant to decide the
controversy involved in this case.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (1996)
4 SCC 17 has observed as under:
“Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in
and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily,
involving thousands and thousands of people through out the country appearing before
summary Courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of
plea- bargaining. Foremost along them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences
under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/ or the inexperienced.
The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-
bargaining is the end of the career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/
or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be
staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are therefore necessary
in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried
summarily. Provision need be made that punishment of fine upto a certain limit, say upto
Rs. 2000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all
for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in government service. This
can brook no delay, whatsoever.”
From the observation made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is clear that life
of the young person to get the job could not be jeopardise merely on the ground that a
criminal case was registered against him.

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 10 of 17

In the present case the petitioner has been acquitted from the offence after trial. The trial
Court specifically observed that false implication of the petitioner in the case cannot be not
ruled out. As per facts of the criminal case, in which the petitioner was prosecuted there
was a quarrel between the parties and thereafter FIR was lodged. A counter case was also
lodged against the complainant party.
Regulation 64 of Madhya Pradesh Police reads as under:
64. General Condition of Service. — Every candidate for an appointment in the police
should be made acquainted, prior to appointment, with the general conditions of police
service, which are as follows—
(1) Each police officer shall devote his whole time to the police service alone. He shall
not take part in any trade or calling whatever, unless expressly permitted to do so.
(2) He shall faithfully and honestly use his best abilities to fulfil all his duties as a police
officer.
(3) He shall confirm himself simplicity to all rules, which shall, from time to time, be
made for the regulation and good order of the service. And shall cultivate a proper regard
for its honour and respectability.
(4) He shall submit to discipline, observe subordination and promptly obey all lawful
orders.
(5) He shall serve and reside wherever he may be directed to serve and reside.
(6) He shall wear, when on duty, such dress and accoutrements as shall, from time to time,
be prescribed for each rank of the service and shall be always neat and clean in his
appearance. At no time shall any police officer appears partly in uniform and partly in
mufti.
(7) He shall allow such deductions to be made, from his pay and allowances as may be
required for kit, quarters and the like, under the rules of the service.
(8) He shall promptly discharge such debts as the Superintendent may direct and shall not
without the Superintendent's permission, have money transactions with any other police
officer, or borrow money from a resident of the district in which he is employed.
(9) He shall not withdraw from the service without distinct permission in writing, or (in the
absence of such permission) without giving two months' previous warning of his intention
to do so.
(10) He shall not on any occasion or under any pretext, directly or indirectly take or
receive any present, gratuity or fee from any person whatsoever, without the sanction of
the Superintendent.
(11) He shall act with respect and deference towards all officers of Government and with
forbearance, kindness and civility towards private persons of all ranks. In private life he
shall set an example of peaceful behaviours and shall avoid all partisanship.

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 11 of 17

(12) On ceasing to belong to the force, he will immediately deliver up all kit and
accoutrements, and vacate any quarters that have been supplied to him at the public cost.
From the facts of the case, conclusion cannot be drawn that the petitioner was not suitable
candidate to be appointed in police service.
In my opinion, the authority did not consider the case of the petitioner in proper
perspective and rejected the candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that the
petitioner was tried for commission of offence. This approach of the authority is not
proper.
Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated
24-3-2015, (Ann. P-5) is hereby quashed. It is ordered that the petitioner be given
appointment on the post of Subedar, Sub- Inspector cadre and Platoon Commander in
pursuance to his selection within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt or copy of
this order. The petitioner shall not be eligible to receive arrears of salary but he shall be
entitled to get benefit of seniority and other benefits from the date of his initial
appointment on which date other persons were appointed in pursuance to same selection to
the post of Subedar, Sub-Inspector cadre and Platoon Commander.
No order as to costs.”
18. In light of the judgment delivered in the case of Pushpendra Mishra, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner is certainly entitled for appointment on the post of
Sub Inspector and the factum of registration of criminal case and his consequential
acquittal , by no stretch of imagination will come in the way of his appointment.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of
Chandigarh , reported in (2015) 2 SCC 377 from paragraphs No. 15 to 27 has held as
under:—
“15. To answer the point No. 1, we must first consider whether the acquittal of the
appellant from the criminal case was an honourable acquittal . It is the contention of the
respondent that even though the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, the
appointment of the appellant by the appointing authority to the post of Constable in
Chandigarh Police , which is a disciplined force was not desirable. The High Court has
held that what would be relevant is the conduct and character of the candidate to be
appointed in the service of State police and not the actual result thereof in the criminal
case as claimed by the appellant. Further, the relevant consideration to the case is the
antecedents of the candidate for appointing him to the post of Constable.
16. However, adverting to the criminal proceeding initiated against the appellant, we
would first like to point out that the complainant did not support the case of the
prosecution as he failed to identify the assailants and further admitted that the contents of
the section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement were not disclosed to him and
his signatures were obtained on a blank sheet of paper by the Investigation Officer. Further,
Sajjan Singh, who was an eyewitness of the case, who was also injured, had failed to

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 12 of 17

identify the assailants. Both the witnesses were declared hostile on the request of the
prosecution.
17. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani held that the prosecution case has not
been able to prove in any way the allegations against the appellant. Thus, the learned Judge
held that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the
appellant in the criminal proceedings. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings
and judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and are of the opinion that the
acquittal of the accused from the criminal case was an honourable acquittal .
18. Learned Counsel has rightly placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Deputy
Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram of which relevant para is extracted as under :
(SCC p. 609, para 24)
“24. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal ” came up for consideration
before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. In that case, this Court has considered
the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal Court on
the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does
not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal , it was held, has to be
honourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal ”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully
exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are
coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the
expression “honourably acquitted”. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration
of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges
levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably
acquitted.
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Further, an acquittal of the appellant is an “honourable” acquittal in every sense and
purpose. Therefore, the appellant should not be deprived from being appointed to the post,
in the public employment, by declaring him as unsuitable to the post even though he was
honourably acquitted in the criminal case registered against him.
20. Further, undisputedly, there has been no allegation of concealment of the fact that a
criminal case was registered against him by the appellant. Thus, the appellant has honestly
disclosed in his verification application submitted to the selection authority that there was
a criminal case registered against him and that it ended in an acquittal on account of
compromise between the parties involved in the criminal case, he cannot be denied an
opportunity to qualify for any post including the post of a Constable.
21. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Secretary, Deptt. of Home
Secy., A.P v. B. Chinnam Naidu which states herein : (SCC p. 750, para 9)
“9. A bare perusal of the extracted portions shows that the candidate is required to indicate
as to whether he has ever been convicted by a Court of law or detained under any State/
Central preventive detention laws for any offences whether such conviction is sustained or

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 13 of 17

set aside by the Appellate Court, if appealed against. The candidate is not required to
indicate as to whether he had been arrested in any case or as to whether any case was
pending. Conviction by a Court or detention under any State/Central preventive detention
laws is different from arrest in any case or pendency of a case. By answering that the
respondent had not been convicted or detained under preventive detention laws it cannot
be said that he had suppressed any material fact or had furnished any false information or
suppressed any information in the attestation form to incur disqualification. The State
Government and the Tribunal appeared to have proceeded on the basis that the respondent
ought to have indicated the fact of arrest or pendency of the case, though column 12 of the
attestation form did not require such information being furnished. The learned Counsel for
the appellants submitted that such a requirement has to be read into an attestation form. We
find no reason to accept such contention. There was no specific requirement to mention as
to whether any case is pending or whether the applicant had been arrested. In view of the
specific language so far as column 12 is concerned the respondent cannot be found guilty
of any suppression.”
(Emphasis laid by this Court)
22. Further, reliance has been placed by this Court in Commr. of Police , Delhi v. Dhaval
Singh wherein it is stated as under: (SCC pp. 248-49, para 6)
“6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to a judgment rendered by a
Bench of this Court on 4-10-1996 in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar. On the first blush, that
judgment seems to support the case of the appellants but there is a material difference
between the two cases. Whereas in the instant case, the respondent has conveyed to the
appellant that an inadvertent mistake had been committed in not giving the information
against the relevant column in the Form much before the cancellation of his candidature, in
Sushil Kumar case no such correction was made at any stage by the respondent. That
judgment is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on facts.”
23. Further, a bare perusal of Rules 12.12, 12.14 and 12.18 of the Rules, which would
indicate that the recruit should be of a good character and suitability. The said Rules are
extracted hereunder:
“Rule 12.12: Supervision of recruitments. — The standard of performance and the
reputation of the whole police force depend above all upon the quality of its Constables.
Standards for recruits are laid down in the rules which follow, but, over and above these,
constant attention and effort to raise the general standard of recruitment are essential.
Gazetted Officers shall at all times devote special attention to discovering and encouraging
men of a thoroughly good stamp to enroll themselves. Efforts shall be made to enroll a
proportion of men belonging to communities or classes, whose representation in the force
is desirable, but who appear reluctant to offer themselves. The examination and measuring
of candidates for enrolment shall invariably be carried out by a gazetted officer, who shall
concern himself specially to prevent the victimization of, or the taking of illegal
gratification from, candidates by subordinate Government servants concerned in the
conduct of their examination. Superintendents shall personally satisfy themselves that the

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 14 of 17

arrangements for the reception of new recruits in the Lines, and for providing them with
bedding and warm clothing, whether as a sanctioned Government issue or under a system
whereby the cost is recovered later in instalments from pay, are adequate, and that
recruitment is not discouraged by initial and avoidable hardships. Deputy Inspector
General, in addition to exercising a careful control over recruitment generally, and
preventing the enrolment of undesirable types, shall, at their inspections, formal and
informal, pay special attention to the observance of this rule.
Rule 12.14 Recruits- Status of. — (1) Recruits shall be of good character and great care
shall be taken in selection men of a type suitable for police service from candidates
presenting themselves for enrolment.
12.18 Recruits verification of character of. — (1) The character and suitability for
enrolment of every recruit shall be ascertained by a reference to the lambardar of the
village or ward member of the town of which the recruit is a resident. A search slip shall
also be sent to the Finger Print Bureau in order to establish his freedom or otherwise from
conviction. Such lambardar or ward member shall, if the recruit is of good character,
furnish a certificate to that effect which shall be verified and attested by the sub-inspector
in charge of the local police station. The Sub-Inspector shall be complete the information
required by form 12.18 (I).”
It is the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the above referred rules lay
down the criteria that clean antecedents and good moral character is indispensable for a
candidate to even fall within the zone of consideration.
24. However, in the present case, we have observed that the appellant was involved in a
family feud and the FIR came to be lodged against him on 14-4-1998, after he had applied
for the post of Constable. Further, he had been acquitted on 4-10-1999, i.e much before he
was called for the interview/medical examination/written test. Further, as per Rule 12.18,
emphasis has been laid on the freedom and otherwise from conviction. An interpretation of
the Rules referred to supra clearly indicate that an acquittal in a criminal case will qualify
him for appointment to the post of Police Constable, as the appellant had successfully
qualified the other requisites required for his selection. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the
trial Court that as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant by
adducing cogent evidence, therefore, the Police authorities cannot be allowed to sit in
judgment over the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in its judgment, wherein the
appellant has been honourably acquitted. Denying him the appointment to the post of a
Constable is like a vicarious punishment, which is not permissible in law, therefore, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is vitiated in law and liable to be
set aside.
25. Further, apart from a small dent in the name of this criminal case in which he has been
honourably acquitted, there is no other material on record to indicate that the antecedents
or the conduct of the appellant was not up to the mark to appoint him to the post. The
appellant was also among the list of the 40 selected successful candidates, who had
fulfilled all the other requirements of the post. Reliance has been placed on the decision of

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 15 of 17

this Court in Jagtar Singh v. CBI, which states as under : (SCC pp. 50-51, para 4)
“4…It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the claim of privilege by
the respondents is justified or not. We also do not wish to go into the details of the
investigations made regarding the antecedents and character of the appellant. We have
carefully examined the material on the basis of which the respondents have come to the
conclusion that the appellant is not suitable for appointment to the post of Senior Public
Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation and we are of the view that the
respondents are not justified in reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant. No
reasonable person, on the basis of the material placed before us, can come to the
conclusion that the appellant's antecedents and character are such that he is unfit to be
appointed to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. There has been total lack of application
of mind on the part of the respondents. Only on the basis of surmises and conjectures
arising out of a single incident which happened in the year 1983 it has been concluded that
the appellant is not a desirable person to be appointed to the Government service. We are
of the view that the appellant has been unjustifiably denied his right to be appointed to the
post to which he was selected and recommended by the Union Public Service
Commission.”
26. Thus, we are of the opinion that the alleged past conduct of the appellant in relation to
the criminal case will not debar or disqualify him for the post of the Constable for which
he was successfully selected after qualifying the written test, medical test and the interview
conducted by the selection authority. Further, as stated by us earlier, there has been no
concealment of any relevant fact from the respondents by the appellant. The respondents
were thus not justified in denying the said post to the appellant. The conclusion arrived at
by them is not cogent and lacks proper application of mind.
27. We therefore, hold that the High Court has committed a grave error both on facts and in
law and it has failed to follow the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases
referred to supra and uphold the decision of the CAT. For the foregoing reasons both the
appeals succeed and are allowed.”
20. In light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the registration of FIR and acquittal in a criminal case for
an offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code will certainly not at all debar the
petitioner to hold the post of Sub Inspector of Police for which he has been successfully
selected after qualifying written test, medical test and the interview conducted by the
authorities.
21. Resultantly, as the petitioner's name finds place in the merit list, the respondents are
directed to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner within 90 days. The
petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including seniority, grant of
increments, notional pay fixation of salary as well as promotion, however, he will not be
entitled for backwages. The respondent will not deny appointment to the petitioner only
because he was involved in a criminal case and has been acquitted vide judgment dated
8-6-2012.

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 16 of 17

22. The exercise of passing necessary orders and taking all consequential action be
completed within a period of 30 days from today. It is made clear that in case, the order
passed by this Court is not complied with within a period of 90 days, the petitioner shall be
entitled for full backwages from the date other identically placed persons have been
appointed on the basis of selection which took place on the basis of selection of the year
2013.
23. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Certified Copy as per rules.
Petition allowed.

Printed by licensee : Deepanshu Bansal (Student) Page 17 of 17