SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Avinash Trivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2019

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 1 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Gwalior, Dated:-11.3.2019
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on admission.

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 16/08/2017;

whereby, the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment in Police

Force has been cancelled for the reasons that he was tried for an

offence under Sections 452, 294, 506B, 323, 147, 149 of Indian

Penal Code(IPC) vide Crime No.263/2010; and under Section 13 of

Gambiling Act vide Crime No.55/11. The impugned order is extracted

below for ready reference:

“dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼eq[;ky;½ ftyk Hkksiky

¼lhCykd iqjkuk lfpoky; Hkksiky462001½
[email protected][;[email protected]@[email protected]@2017]Hkksiky fnukad [email protected]@2017

izfr]
Jh vfouk’k fosnh]
firk jkeujsUnz fosnh,
fuoklh jkeiqj jksM] dwy cjksgh xyh]
loyxM+ ftyk eqjSuk Ek0iz0

fo”k; % ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j esa nk;j ;kfpdk dz
[email protected] esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 03-11-2016 ds ikfjr fu.kZ; ds laca/k esaA
——-00——
e/;izns’k ‘kklu x`g iqfyl foHkkx ] iqfyl eq[;ky; ds vUrxZr
e/;izns’k izksQs’kuy ,Xtkfeus’ku cksMZ] Hkksiky }kjk vkj{kd laoxZ dh HkrhZ
gsrq p;u ijh{kk o”kZ 2013 vk;ksftr dh xbZ FkhA e/;izns’k ijh{kk e.My
Hkksiky }kjk ijh{kk lapkyu ,oa HkrhZ fu;e mudh osclkbZV
www.vyapam.nic.in ij viyksM fd;s x;s FksA ;g fu;eksa esa Li”V dj
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 2 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

fn;k x;k Fkk fd p;u izkof/kd gksxk rFkk leLr pj.kksa esa fQV ik;s tkus
ij gh fu;qfDr vkns’k tkjh fd;s tkosaxsA
vki e/;izns’k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkksiky }kjk tkjh izos’k i
ds vk/kkj ij vkidks Hkksiky esa ewy izek.k iksa ds ijh{k.k rFkk ‘kkjhfjd
izoh.krk vuqdzekad 264792 ls vkj{kd ¼th-Mh-½ ds in ij p;fur fd;k
tkdj inLFkkiuk iqfyl v/kh{kd] Hkksiky iznku dh xbZA p;u mijkar
iqfyl v/kh{kd] Hkksiky }kjk vkidk pfj lR;kiu] e/;izns’k ‘kklu x`g
iqfyl foHkkx ds vkns’k dz-,[email protected]@lh1 fnukWd 05-06-2003 esa
fu/kkZfjr funsZ’k ,oa izfd;k ds vuq:i djk;k x;kA pfj lR;kiu dh
dk;Zokgh esa iqfyl egkfujh{kd ¼dk0O;[email protected]{kk½ e0iz0 Hkksiky ds i dz-
fo’[email protected]@[email protected]¼,[email protected]½ fnukad 19-7-2013 ds ek/;e ls
pfj lR;kiu fjiksVZ izkIr gqbZA vkids pfj lR;kiu ds izdj.k esa
oLrqfLFkfr fuEukuqlkj gS %
vijk/k dz- [email protected] /kkjk 294]323]452]506ch] 147]149 Hkknfo dk
izdj.k iathc) dj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k FkkA U;k;ky; }kjk
fnukad 10-01-2013 dks vkjksi izekf.kr u gksus ls nks”keqDr fd;k x;k gSA
vijk/k dz- [email protected] /kkjk 13 tqvk ,DV dk izdj.k iathc) dj
pkyku U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k Fkk] U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 8-7-13 dks
100 :i;s vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k x;kA
bl laca/k esa ;g Hkh mYy[kuh; gS fd iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok ‘krZs
,oa vkpj.k e/;izns’k iqfyl jsX;qys[ku ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr gS ftlds iSjk
dzekad 64 esa ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS iqfyl dk vf/kdkjh vius futh thou
esa ‘kkafriw.kZ O;ogkj dk vkn’kZ izLrqr djsxk rFkk lHkh izdkj ds i{kikr ls
nwj jgsxkA
;wfuQkeZ [email protected] pkgus okys O;fDr dh lsok,as vU; lsok okys
mEehnokj ls fHkUu Lrj dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS iqfyl foHkkx esa p;fur
mEehnokj dk drZO; izns’k dh dkuwu O;oLFkk ,oa tuark dh tku eky dh
lqj{kk fuoZgu djuk gksrk gS iqfyl dh lsok esa mPp uSfrd vkpj.k gksuk o
vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;kW u gksuk vko’;d gSA
‘kkldh; lsodks ds laca/k esa ‘kklu ds mRre vkpj.k laca/kh fl)kUrksa
ds vuqlkj ‘kkldh; dehZ dks mRre Nfc okyk gksuk pkfg, pwafd iqfyl
foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ij vkijkf/kd izo`fRr ds yksxksa ij vadq’k yxkus dh
ftEesnkjh gksrh gSA vr% tufgr esa vkijkf/kd fjdkMZ ds O;fDr dks iqfyl
foHkkx esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 3 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

mijksDr nksuks vijk/k esa mYysf[kr /kkjk 149 Hkknfo ¼fof/k fo:)———-
dk gj lnL; lkekU; mn~ns’; dks vxzlj djus ds fy, fd, x, vijk/k
dk nks”kh½ /kkjk 452 Hkknfo ¼migfr geyk ;k lnks”k vojks/k dh rS;kj ds
i’pkr~ x`g vfrpkj uSfrd v/kksiru ds vUrxZr gksrs gq, xaHkhj izd`fr dh
gSA [email protected] ds vk/kkj ij mDr vijk/k ls nks”keqfDr dh ifjf/k esa
lfEefyr ugha gksus ls lansgiw.kZ nks”keqfDr izekf.kr gSA
tqvk ,DV ¼lkoZtfud LFky ij tqvk [ksyuk½ uSfrd v/kksiru ds vUrxZr gS
ftlesa 100 :i;s vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA
mijksDr vijk/kksa ls vH;kFkhZ ds d`R; ls mldh fglad izo`fRr rFkk
dkuwu ds izfr vknj dh Hkkouk mtkxj ugha gksrh gS] tks iqfyl tSls
laosnu’khy foHkkx ds fy, mi;qDr ugha gSA vr% mijksDr n`f”V ls iqfyl
egkfujh{kd] ¼dk-O;[email protected]{kk½ e-iz- Hkksiky }kjk vkidks iqfyl foHkkx dh lsok
ds fy;s vkidks v;ksX; ik;k x;k gSA

iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼eq[;k0½
ftyk Hkksiky”

2. It is also apparent from the report by the Screening Committee

dated 12.4.2017, which is also under challenge that the matter was

examined by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on

30/03/2017 wherein following findings have been arrived at:

xksiuh; fo’ks”k ‘kk[kk] e/;izns’k] Hkksiky
dzekad fo’[email protected]@[email protected] ¼,[email protected]½ fnukad 12-4-17
izfr]
vfrfjDr iqfyl egkfuns’kd]¼p;[email protected]½
iqfyl eq[;ky; HkksikyA
fo”k;% vH;FkhZ vfouk’k fosnh ds pfj lR;kiu izdj.k ds laca/k esaA
lanHkZ% vkidk i dz- [email protected];[email protected]@[email protected] fnukad 08-03-
17
***

lUnfHkZr i dk d`i;k voyksdu djsa] vH;FkhZ vfouk’k fosnh ds
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 4 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

pfj lR;kiu izdj.k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j }kjk
voekuuk ;kfpdk dz- MCY;w [email protected] vfouk’k fosnh fo:) vU;
fnukad03-11-16 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vorkj
flag fo:) Hkkjr la?k o vU; ¼,l,yih dz- [email protected] fu.kZ; fn0 21-07-
16½ dks ikfjr fl)karks ds vkyksd esa iqu% fopkj djus dk fu.kZ; ikfjr
fd;k gSA
vH;FkhZ vfouk’k fosnh ds lR;kiu ds nkSjku buds fo:) ftyk
eqjSuk e0iz0 esa fuEufyf[kr vijk/k iathc) gksuk ik;s x;s gS %
¼1½ Fkkuk lcyx+ esa [email protected] /kkjk 452]294]506ch]323]147]149
Hkknfo dk iathc) gksuk ik;k x;k gSA vfr-eq[; U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 10-
01-13 dks /kkjk 147][email protected]]294]506ch esa jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij rFkk
/kkjk 452 Hkknfo esa vkjksi lansg esa ijs izekf.kr ugh ik;s tkus ij nks”keqDr
fd;k x;k gSA
¼2½ Fkkuk lcyx+ esa vi-dz- [email protected] /kkjk 13 tqvk ,DV dk izdj.k iathc}
gksuk ik;k x;k gSA fnukad 08-07-13 dks :i;s [email protected] ds vFkZn.M fd;k
x;k gSA
vH;FkhZ ij iathc} vijk/k dh /kkjk 452]149 rFkk 13 tqvk ,DV
Hkknfo uSfrd v/kksiru ds vUrxZr gSA vH;FkhZ }kjk vijk/k dk mYys[k
vuqizek.ku QkeZ] ‘kiFk i esa fd;k gSA
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk voekuuk ;kfpdk dz- MCY;w [email protected]
fnukad 03-11-16 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; dsa vkns’kuqlkj vorkjflag fo:) Hkkjr
la?k esa ikfjr vkns’k ds vkyksd esa fnukad 30-3-17 dks vk;ksftr Nkuchu
lfefr dh cSBd esa buds izdj.k dh iqu% leh{kk dh xbZA vorkjfLkag fo:}
Hkkjr la/k ds vkns’k ds iSjk30 esa fuEufyf[kr fcUnq ekxZnf’kZr fl)kar
ds :i esa fn;s x;s gS ftldh fLFkfr bl izdj.k esa fuEukuqlkj gS %

l-dz fu.kZ; dh dafMdk vH;FkhZ ds izdj.k dh
fLFkfr

-1 Information given to the employer by vH;FkhZ }kjk vuqizek.ku
a candidate as to conviction, acquittal QkeZ esa mlds fo:)
or arrest[ or pendency of a criminal iathc} vijk/k dk ys[k
fy;k gSA
case, whether before or after entering
into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false
mention of required information.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 5 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

-2 While passing order of termination of
services or cancellation of candidature
for giving false information, the
employer may take notice of special
circumstances of the case, if any,
while giving such information.

-3 The employer shall take into vH;FkhZ ij iathc)
consideration the Government orders/ vijk/k dh /kkjk
instructions/ rules, applicable to the 452]149 Hkknfo ,oa
employee, at the time of taking the 13 lkoZtfud /kqr
decision. vf/kfu;e ‘kklu ds
funsZ’k dzekad
,[email protected]@lh
1 fnukad 5 twu 2003
ds vuqlkj uSfrd
v?kksiru dh Js.kh esa
gksdj xEHkhj izd`fr dh
gSA vH;FkhZ dh nks”keqfDr
Clean or Hournable
Acquittal dh J.kh esa
ugha vkrh gSA
, ;qfuQkeZ
[email protected] pkgus okys
O;fDr dh lsok,as vU;
lsok okys mEehnokj ls
fHkUu Lrj dh Js.kh esa
vkrh gS iqfyl foHkkx esa
p;fur mEehnokj dk
drZO; izns’k dh dkuwu
O;oLFkk ,oa turk dh
tku eky dh lqj{kk dk
fuoZgu djuk gksrk gSA
iqfyl dh lsok esa mP
uSfrd vkpj.k gksuk o
vijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka u
gksuk vko’;d gS
ch ‘kkldh; lsodks
ds laca/k esa ‘kklu ds
mRre vkpj.k laca/kh
fl}kUrksa ds vuqlkj
‘kkldh; dehZ dks mRre

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 6 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Nfc okyk gksuk pkfg,
pwafd iqfyl foHkkx ds
vf/kdkfj;ksa ij
vijkf/kd izo`fRr ds
yksxksa ij vadq’k yxkus
dh ftEesnkjh gksrh gSA
vr% tufgr esa
vijkf/kd fjdkMZ ds
O;fDr dks iqfyl foHkkx
esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk
mfpr ugh gS
lh iqfyl foHkkx esa
fu;qfDr gsrq mEehnokj
ds mRre pfj]
lR;fu”Bk ,oa bZekunkjh
dh vis{kk dh tkrh
gSA ,slk mEehnokj tks
iwoZ ls vijkf/kd
xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIr
jgk gS] Hkfo”; esa Hkh bl
izdkj dh xfrfof/k;ksa esa
lafyIr gksus dh laHkkouk
ls badkj ugh fd;k tk
ldrkA

-4 In case there is suppression or false vH;FkhZ }kjk vijkf/kd
information of involvement in a tkudkjh NqikbZ ugh xbZ
criminal case where conviction or gSA
acquittal had already been recorded
before filling of the application/
verification form and such fact later
comes to knowledge of employer, any
of the following recourse appropriate
to the case may be adopted:-

(a) In case trivial in nature in which
conviction had been recorded, such as
shouting slogans at young age or for a
petty offence which if disclosed would
not have rendered and incumbent
unfit for post in question, the
employer may, in its discretion, ignore
such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.

(b) Where conviction has been
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 7 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

recorded in case which is not trivial in
nature, employer may cancel
candidature or terminate services of
the employee.

© if acquittal has already been
recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
nature, on technical ground and it is
not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit
of reasonable doubt has been giving,
the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to
antecedents, and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the
employee.

-5 In a case where the employee has vH;FkhZ }kjk vijk/kksa dk
made declaration truthfully of a mYys[k vuqizdk.ku QkeZ
concluded criminal case, the employer esa fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq
still has the right to consider vH;FkhZ }kjk yxkrkj
antecedents, and cannot be compelled fd, x;s vijk/kksa esa
to appoint the candidate. uSfrd v|ksiru ds
vk;ke ‘kkfey gS ,oa
yxkrkj fd, x;s
vijk/kksa ls vH;FkhZ dh
vijkf/kd izd`fr
n`f”Vxr gksdj] Hkfo”; esa
iqu% vijk/k nksgjk, tkus
dh izcy laHkkouk izrhr
gksrh gSA ;|fi vH;FkhZ
dks U;k;k- }kjk vkjksi
izekf.kr ugh ik, tkus
ij nksuks vijk/kksa ls
nks”keqfDr fd;k x;k gS]
fdUrq ,slh nks”keqfDr
Clean or Honourable
acquittal dh Js.kh esa
ugh vkrh gSA
vr% vH;FkhZ dks
‘kkldh; lsok ds
v;ksX; ik;k x;k gSA

-6 In case when fact has been truthfully mDr vijk/k lkekU;

declared in character verification form vijk/k dh Js.kh esa
regarding pendency of a criminal case ugh vkrk gS vr% mDr
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 8 :

W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

of trivial nature, employer, in facts fcUnq bl izdj.k esa ykxw
and circumstances of the case, in its ugh gksrs A
discretion may appoint the candidate
subject to decision of such case.

7 In case of deliberate suppression of vH;FkhZ ds fo:) izkIr
fact with respect to multiple pending tkudkjh ,oa nLrkostksa
cases such false information by itself ds vuqlkj uSfrd
will assume significance and an v/kksiru ds 02 vijk/k
employer may pass appropriate order gksuk ik;s x;s gSA
cancelling candidature or termination
services as appointment of a person
against whom multiple criminal cases
were pending may not be proper.

8 If criminal case was pending b ut not mDr izdj.k esa vH;FkhZ
known to the candidate at the time of dks vijk/k ds rF;ksa dh
filling the form, still it may have tkudkjh vuqizek.ku
adverse impact and the appointing QkWeZ Hkjrs le; FkhA
authority would take decision after ftldk mYys[k QkeZ es
considering the seriousness of the fd;k x;k gSA
crime.

-9 In case the employee is confirmed in vH;FkhZ dks ‘kkldh;

service, holding Departmental enquiry lsok esa dHkh ‘kkfey ugh
would be necessary before passing fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g
order of termination/removal or fcUnq ykxw ugh gksrk gS
dismissal on the ground of
suppression or submitting false
information in verification form.

10 For determining suppression or false vH;FkhZ dks vuqizek.ku
information attestation/ Verification QkeZ esa vijk/k ds laca/k
form has to be specific, not vague. esa mYys[k djus dh
Only such information which was vis{kk dh xbZ Fkh tks
required to be specific, not vagure. mlds }kjk dh xbZ gSA
Only such information which was
required to be specifically mentioned
has to be disclosed. If information not
asked for but is relevant comes to
knowledge of the employer the same
can be considered in an objective
manner while addressing the question
of fitness. However, in such cases
action cannot be taken on basis of
suppression or submitting false
information as to a fact which was not
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 9 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

even asked for.

11 Before a person in held guilty of vH;FkhZ dks vuqizek.ku
suppression very or suggestion falsi, QkWeZ Hkjrs le; vijk/k
knowledge of the fact must be dk Kku Fkk] ftldk
attributable to him. mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA
vr% vH;FkhZ ds izdj.k esa mijksDr leh{kk mijkUr lfefr }kjk iqfyl
lsok ds fy, v;ksX; ik;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA

iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd]
dk-O;@lqj{kk]e-iz- Hkksiky

3. Petitioner challenges the order on the ground that having

been acquitted in Crime No.263/2010 the respondents are not

justified in rejecting his candidature.

4. Evidently in Crime No.263/2010, the petitioner is acquitted

of the charges under Sections 147, 323/149, 294, 506B IPC on the

basis of compromise because of which the offence under Section 452

IPC could not be proved. As regards to case under Gambling Act, the

petitioner deposited the fine imposed on 08/07/2013. Thus, admitted

his guilt.

5. The issue arising herein that whether acquittal from the

criminal charges on the basis of compromise will entitle the

incumbent for appointment has been decided by the Supreme Court

in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar

passed in [Civil Appeal No.11356/2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)

No.17404 of 2016)] it is held by the Supreme Court:

“15. In the present case, as on the date when the
respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 10 :

W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

against him. Compromise was entered into only after an
affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the
issue of compounding of offences and the effect of
acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law
declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), specially
in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue.
Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the
employer would be well within his rights to consider the
antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so
considering, the employer can certainly take into account
the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the
severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and
whether the acquittal in question was an honourable
acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt
or as a result of composition.

16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus
Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran
(supra) is not quite correct and said decision cannot be of
any assistance to the respondent. In para 5 of said
decision, this Court had found 11 WP-6052-2017 that the
only allegation against the appellant therein was that he
was travelling in an auto-rickshaw which was following
the auto-rickshaw in which the prime accused, who was
charged under Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the
prosecutrix in question and that all the accused were
acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the
allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran (supra)
thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be
said to have departed from the line of decisions rendered
by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 11 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

(supra) and Pradeep Kumar (supra).

18. Before we part, we must record our appreciation for
the efforts put in by Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Amicus
Curiae and the assistance rendered by him.”

6. In State of Madhya Pradesh Others vs. Parvez Khan:[(2015)
2 SCC 591], it is held:

“10. After due consideration, we are of the view that the
impugned order cannot be sustained. Refusal by the
competent authority to recruit the respondent on the
ground of criminal antecedents is not liable to be
interfered with. The applicable Guidelines dated 5-6-
2003 inter alia provide :

“On the basis of merits and demerits by the Hon’ble
Court the acquitted candidate will be eligible for the
Government Service.”

The above Guidelines show that acquittal is not
conclusive. Even after acquittal, basis of order of the
Court has to be gone into by the competent authority.
Even after order based on compromise or lack of
evidence may render a candidate ineligible. In the present
case, the relevant part of the order of the Superintendent
of Police is as follows:

“Action was taken in regard to the proceedings of
compassionate appointment, character verification was
got done, wherein vide Letter
No.V.S./21/VHR/2007/17(F)283/07 dated 17-9-2007 of
the Police Headquarters it was informed that a case under
Section 294, 323, 506, 324, 34 of IPC had been
registered against the applicant in Police Station K 9 WP-
6052-2017 and the applicant was acquitted on the basis
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 12 :

W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

of a compromise by the Court on 23-2-2007. In the same
manner in Crime No.494 of 06 under Section 394, 364,
451 of IPC a case was registered and vide judgment
dated 31-1-2007 of the Court he was acquitted. Two
separate crimes had been registered against the applicant,
wherein in one case Section 394, 451 and 365 IPC are
there and which come in the category of moral turpitude.
In the judgment of the Court benefit of doubt has been
given, therefore, as per the new Guidelines of 2003
issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in respect
of character verification the applicant Parvez Khan alias
Sonu alias Raja has been found to be ineligible for
Government service.”

13. From the above observations of this Court, it is
clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police
service must be worthy of confidence and must be
a person of utmost rectitude and must have
impeccable character and integrity. A person
having criminal antecedents will not fit in this
category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it
cannot be presumed that he was completely
exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the
credibility of the police ought not to enter the
police force. No doubt the Screening Committee
has not been constituted in the case considered by
this Court, as rightly pointed out by learned
counsel for the Respondent, in the present case, the
Superintendent of Police has gone into the matter.
The Superintendent of Police is the appointing
authority. There is no allegation of mala fides
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : 13 :
W.P.No.4997/2019 (Avinash Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others)

against the person taking the said decision nor the
decision is shown to be perverse or 10 WP-6052-
2017 irrational. There is no material to show that
the appellant was falsely implicated. Basis of
impugned judgment(Parvez Khan vs. State of
M.P.) is acquittal for want of evidence or discharge
based on compounding.”

7. When the impugned order is tested on the anvil of principle of

law laid down by the judgments in Parvez Khan (supra) and Abhijit

Singh Pawar (supra), the same cannot be faulted with.

8. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

(Sanjay Yadav)
Judge

Pawar/-

ASHISH PAWAR
2019.03.18
11:55:32
+05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation