IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI ON THE 3^rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 16095 of 2025 VIVEK PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Burhanuddin Azad- Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Drishti Rawal -GA for the respondents/State

ORDER

The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent no. 3. By the said order, the application for compassionate appointment preferred by the petitioner’s mother on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of the petitioner’s involvement in two criminal cases, despite his eventual acquittal by the courts of competent jurisdiction.

2. The facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner, late Shri Kanhayyalal Pandey, was serving with the Madhya Pradesh Police as Sub Inspector at District Special Branch (DSB), Indore. He died in harness on 24/08/2020. Following his demise, the wife of the deceased employee, Mrs. Lata Pandey, applied for compassionate appointment for her son, the petitioner Vivek Pandey.

3. In his application/declaration, the petitioner disclosed that two criminal cases were registered against him. The first case (G.R. Case No. 1685/2017) was registered u/s 498-A and 506 of the I.P.C. at Police Station KGP (T) Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, by his wife. The second case (Crime No. 458/2018) was registered u/s 294, 323, and 506 of the I.P.C. at Police Station Malharganj by a relative of his wife. Both cases arose out of matrimonial disputes.

4. It is placed on record that the petitioner has been acquitted in both cases. Vide judgment dated 27/07/2022 in Criminal Case No. 6718/2018, the J.M.F.C. Indore acquitted the petitioner, and vide judgment dated 29/11/2023 in G.R. Case No. 1685/2017, the J.M.F.C. 6th Court, Paschim Medinipur, also acquitted the petitioner, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case. Notwithstanding these acquittals, the respondents rejected the claim for compassionate appointment vide the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses all requisite eligibility for compassionate appointment. It is contended that the respondents failed to consider that the criminal cases were a result of matrimonial discord and the marriage has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

6. It is further argued that the petitioner acted bona fide by disclosing the cases himself. The petitioner asserts that the trial courts’ findings—stating that the prosecution “miserably failed to prove his case”—amount to an “honourable acquittal.” Consequently, the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited in the impugned order are distinguishable as they pertained to heinous offences like Sections 307 or 395 of the I.P.C., whereas the present case involves personal matrimonial disputes.

7. Per contra, the respondents, in their reply, submits that the police force is a disciplined force requiring personnel of impeccable character. It is contended that the Screening Committee, during character verification, found the offences to be in the nature of "moral turpitude." The respondents justify the impugned order by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Principal Bench at Jabalpur in Roop Narayan Vs. State of M.P. (W.A. No. 163/09), wherein it was held:

“Thus, the decision taken by the Department was not mechanical, but it was a conscious decision after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective. Further, if a candidate is to be recruited to the Police service, he must be worthy confidence of an utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. The persons having criminal antecedents would not fall within the ambit or the said category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he can be completely exonerated.”

8