Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6361
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
DHARMENDRA KUMAR TIWARI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THRUOGH MINISTRYU OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 37865 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Gyanish Kumar Dubey
For the Respondents: Shri Romesh Dave
In cases of criminal accusations, lack of notice for appointment cancellation is justified when the allegations are not contested, adhering to precedents on the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenging the cancellation of appointment - Appointment of Constable (GD) cancelled due to criminal charges involving moral turpitude without issuing a show cause notice. - Court held that in cases where the registration of a criminal case is undisputed, giving a show cause notice is a useless formality, and precedents were cited to support this view. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles not the only ground for quashing an order - Violations of procedural fairness must show prejudice; the court emphasized precedents showing relaxed rigour in natural justice adjudication. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Sepoy in 2004, retired in 2021, applied for Constable (GD) in BSF, passed the exam but faced cancellation of appointment due to being an accused in a criminal case involving serious offenses.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the character verification process revealed ongoing criminal accusations against the petitioner, justifying the cancellation without a show cause notice.
Issues: The core issue was whether cancellation of the appointment without notice violated natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that when an accused's prior criminal activity is not disputed, showing cause for cancellation becomes unnecessary and courts can rely on established precedents to dismiss such petitions without a hearing on procedural grounds.
Result: The petition stands dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA rd ON THE 23 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 37865 of 2025 DHARMENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Versus UNION OF INDIA THRUOGH MINISTRYU OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Gyanish Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 26.05.2025, by which the respondent no.5 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner earlier filed WP No.25415/2025 before the Principal Seat at Jabalpur. The said petition was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to file petition before Indore bench.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sepoy in Armed forced on 14.01.2004. The petitioner has retired from Army Services on 03.01.2021. The Staff Selection Committee has issued an advertisement for the post of Constable (GD). It is submitted that petitioner had applied for the said post as an Ex-Army Personnel. It is further submitted that Computer Based Test was held, in which, petitioner was declared passed. Thereafter, respondents have verified the document of the petitioner. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH respondent no.3 has issued an order dated 23.12.204 by which the petitioner has been selected as Constable (GD) in BSF. The petitioner was sent on Staff Training Centre, Jodhpur Rajasthan. The petitioner has disclosed that a criminal case is pending against him under section 296, 351(B), 351(C), 352, 74, 75(A) and 79 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has been sent for training of Constable (GD) to STC, BSF, Hazaribag. The petitioner was qualified the final test conducted on 21.05.2025. In course of training, respondent no.5 has issued an order dated 26.05.2025, by which, he has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD). Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent no.4 has written a letter on 30.05.2025, by which, he has informed the petitioner that his appointment order has been cancelled by the respondent no.3 vide order dated 26.05.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order of cancelling the appointment has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner violating the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an accused of a criminal case under section 74, 75(1), 296, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 79 of BNSS. The said fact has been mentioned in the character verification vide Annexure P/2. The appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in view of the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Government of India dated 01.02.2012 and 16.07.2020 as the petitioner is an accused of serious offence involving moral turpitude.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH It is further mentioned that section 74 and 75 (1) is equivalent to section 354 and 354(a) of IPC. He further submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable (GD) 2024 and was only offered temporary provisional appointment and was sent to training. However, on verification of the character, a report has been received Annexure P/2 and therefore, the appointment has been cancelled.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that since the registration of the aforesaid criminal case is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, giving a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing would be a useless formality.
In case of the Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] the Apex Court held that it is not always necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice. In M.C. Mehta [ (1999) 6 SCC 237 ] it was pointed out
