IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT WRIT PETITION No. 5160 of 2017 MITHUN UIKEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Dilip Awasthi – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Reserved on : 09.01.2026 Pronounced on : 2.02.2026

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-

“i- The order impugned annexure P/1 and the circular annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed.

ii- Respondents may kindly be directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner.

iii- Respondents may kindly be directed to issue fresh notification by application of mind and they be directed to consider the act of person instead of section for deciding moral turpitude.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was duly selected on the post of Constable after appearing in the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2013. It is further submitted that by order dated 23.1.2015 petitioner was informed that his candidature to the post of Constable has been rejected by the respondent on the ground of registration of a criminal case. It is further submitted that petitioner is also aggrieved by the circular issued by the Govt. Madhya Pradesh dated 5.6.2003 on which was made for the purpose of denying character verification. It is further submitted that the order dated 23.1.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent is without application of mind and cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that at the time of character verification, petitioner himself disclosed that a case is registered against him. Despite the compromise being there, the respondents passed the order holding that the petitioner has failed in character verification therefore, he is declared unfit for the services and his selection has been cancelled. It is further submitted that various others similarly situated person against whom the cases have been registered or who have been acquitted on the basis of compromise are in service. It is further submitted that circular dated 5.6.2003 has discrepancies as offence related 354 of I.P.C. is not included and moral turpitude but the offence under Section 427 of I.P.C. which is simple in nature has been included in moral turpitude.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State fairly submits that petitioner involved in a criminal case and he was prosecuted for offences under Sections 506, 427, 323 and 34 of I.P.C. During pendency of the trial, there was a compounding of offences between the complainant side and accused person. The learned Trial Court allowed the offences to be compounded by the order dated 4.2.2010 and the petitioner was declared acquitted in term of compromise. It is further submitted that on the account of involvment in criminal case, the petitioner has been held to be disqualified for appointment in police force. The Police force is disciplined force and high standard of integrity and character antecedents is desirable from the member of police force. It is further submitted that the case of petitioner was duly placed before the Screening Committee on 30.8.2014, the petitioner presented his own case before the Screening Committee and upon consideration, it was found that the member of police force should have character antecedents clean from any cloud. It was further recorded by the Committee that it is a desirable that the member of police force should be a peace loving person in his personal life, should have a model character. Furthermore, non-involvement in criminal activities is highly desirable from member of police and as petitioner was involved in a case under Section 427 of I.P.C. which as per the circular dated 5.6.2003 comes under offence involving moral turpitude, for such reason petitioner is not entitle