Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, C.J., VINAY SARAF, J.
Sachin – Petitioner
Versus
Hon’ble The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat Of Jabalpur And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 26421 of 2023
Decided On : 04-11-2025
(1) Appointment -- whether every non-disclosure or concealment of involvement in criminal case is an absolute bar to appointment -- some crucial aspects which should enter judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining nature of relief to be ordered -- nature of office; timing and nature of criminal case; overall consideration of judgment of acquittal; nature of query in application/verification form; contents of character verification reports; socio-economic strata of individual applying; other antecedents of candidate; nature of consideration and contents of cancellation/termination order -- further, non-disclosure of criminal case which ended in acquittal cannot in all circumstances be deemed to be fatal -- broad-brushing every non-disclosure as disqualification will be unjust -- it will tantamount to being completely oblivious to ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country -- each case will depend on facts and circumstances that prevail thereon -- Court will have to take holistic view based on objective criteria, with available precedents serving as guide -- it can never be a one-size-fits-all scenario. (2024) 5 SCC 264 followed. [Para 9]
(2) Appointment -- non-disclosure of involvement in criminal case -- post of Assistant Grade-III -- petitioner was involved in an altercation on a trivial issue, which led to registration of cross FIRs, which were subsequently compounded and petitioner was acquitted -- FIR was registered and compounded in 2016 and application was filed in 2021 -- offence did not involve moral turpitude -- no allegation that petitioner was involved in any other litigation prior to or post the said date -- no other material to affect his antecedents -- held -- candidature of petitioner could not have been rejected simpliciter because of non-disclosure of involvement in FIR -- holistic view should have been taken -- matter remanded for reconsidering case of petitioner in light of law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Ravindra Kumar. (2024) 5 SCC 264 followed. [Paras 10 & 11]
¼1½ fu;qfDr & vkijkf/kd çdj.k esa varoZfyr gksus dk çR;sd vçdVhdj.k ;k fNiko fu;qfä ds fy, iw.kZ otZu gS ;k ugha & mi;qärk dk U;k;fu.kZ;u rFkk vknsf'kr fd, tkus okys vuqrks"k dh ç—fr dk vo/kkj.k djrs le; U;kf;d vfèker esa ftu dfri; egRoiw.kZ igywvksa dks vkuk pkfg, & in dh ç—fr; vkijkf/kd çdj.k dk le; vkSj ç—fr; nks"keqfä ds fu.kZ; ij lexz:is.k fopkj; vkosnu@lR;kiu ç:i esa fd, x, ç'u dh ç—fr pfj= lR;kiu çfrosnuksa dh varoZLrq; vkosnu djus okys O;fä dk lkekftd&vkfFkZd Lrj; vH;FkhZ ds vU; iwoZo`Ùk; jn~ndj.k@lsoklekfIr vkns'k ds foospu vkSj varoZLrq dh ç—fr & blds vfrfjä] nks"keqfä esa lekIr gksus okys vkijkf/kd çdj.k ds vçdVhdj.k dks lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ?kkrd ugha le>k tk ldrk & çR;sd vçdVhdj.k dks fujgZrk fu:fir djuk vU;k;iw.kZ gksxk & ,slk djuk bl egku] fo'kky vkSj fofo/krkiw.kZ ns'k dh /kjkryh okLrfodrk ls iw.kZr% vufHkK gksus dh dksfV esa vk,xk & çR;sd çdj.k mlesa vfHkHkkoh rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djsxk & U;k;ky; dks oLrqijd ekunaMksa ij vkk/kkfjr lokaZxh.k –f"Vdks.k viukuk gksxk] ftlesa miyCèk iwoZ fu.kZ; ekxZn'kZd gksaxs & ;g dHkh Hkh lHkh dks ykxw gksus okys ,d&uki ifjn`'; ugha gks ldrkA ¼2024½ 5 ,llhlh 264 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9½
¼2½ fu;qfDr & vkijkf/kd çdj.k esa varoZfyr gksus dk vçdVhdj.k & lgk;d r`rh; Js.kh dk in & ;kph fdlh {kqæ fook|d ij >M+i esa varoZfyr Fkk ftlds dkj.k ,d&nwljs ds fo:) çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ iath—r gqbZ ftudk rnuarj 'keu fd;k x;k vkSj ;kph nks"keqä fd;k x;k & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk iathdj.k vkSj 'keu 2016 esa fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk vkosnu 2021 esa fd;k x;k & vijk/k esa uSfrd v/kerk varoZfyr ugha Fkh & ,slk dksbZ vfHkdFku ugha fd mä fnukad ds iwoZ ;k i'pkr~ ;kph fdlh vU; eqdnesckth esa varoZfyr Fkk & mlds iwoZo`Ùk çHkkfor djus okyh vU; dksbZ lkexzh ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa varoZfyr gksus ds vçdVhdj.k ds dkj.k ;kph dh vH;fFkZrk lh/ks ukeatwj ugha dh tk ldrh Fkh & LokaZxh.k –f"Vdks.k viuk;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk & mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk jfoaæ dqekj ds çdj.k esa vf/kdfFkr fof/k ds vkyksd esa ;kph ds çdj.k ij iqufoZpkj ds fy, ekeyk çfrçsf"krA ¼2024½ 5 ,llhlh 264 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11½
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-disclosure of a minor criminal case leads to rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. assessment of suitability must consider all aspects. (Para 6) |
| 3. character evaluations must be fair and based on relevant facts. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. holistic assessment of past conduct required. (Para 10) |
| 5. court directs reconsideration of the case. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, C.J.
1. Petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sehore; whereby the District and Sessions Judge Sehore rejected the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on the ground of concealment of the involvement in a criminal case.
2. An advertisement was published by the High court on 12.11.2021 seeking applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III. Petitioner submitted the application, however, in the application form the petitioner, to the query as to whether he had been involved in any criminal proceedings either before the Police or before a Court and whether the same were pending or disposed of, he had answered in the “Negative”.
3. Petitioner thereafter participated in the Preliminary Examination, Mains Examination as also in the interview and cleared all of them. However, at the time of filling up of the verification form, petitioner disclosed that he had been involved in an FIR under sections 294, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, which was registered on account of an incident that took place in the Coaching Institute where petitioner had gone for taking coaching. He was prevented from attending the classes as he was not carrying a physical copy of the identity card, which led to an altercation and cross FIRs were registered both against the students and the staff of the coaching institute. Subsequently, the disputes were compromised and the criminal cases were compounded and petitioner was acquitted.
4. On being made aware of the said involvement through the verification form, the District and Sessions Judge passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of concealment of the required information in the application form. The sole reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is the non-disclosure of involvement in the criminal case in the application form.
5. It is not in dispute that in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner at the time of verification petitioner has disclosed about the registration of an FIR and the subsequent proceedings thereon. FIR was registered in the year 2016 and petitioner was acquitted on 12.11.2016 pursuant to a compromise between the parties.
6. The question is as to whether every non-disclosure or concealment of involvement in a criminal case is an absolute bar to appointment or it is open to the appointing authority to take into account the nature of incident, the extent of involvement, the result of the proceedings and the nature of job and then to take a holistic view and determine as to whether the candidate is suitable or unsuitable for appointment?
7. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2024) 5 SCC 264; wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :-
“22. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India , (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] . Paras 34, 35, 36 and 38, which sets out the conclusions, are extracted hereinbelow : (SCC pp. 506-508)
“34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to ac
Non-disclosure of minor criminal involvement does not automatically disqualify a candidate; suitability must be assessed holistically by the appointing authority.
The court held that the non-disclosure of a past criminal case requires careful evaluation of circumstances, and automatic cancellation of appointment is arbitrary.
Suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
Non-disclosure of trivial criminal cases does not disqualify a candidate for government service; the appointing authority must consider the nature of the case and the candidate's overall suitability.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
