Acquittals Not Honorable, Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents Amounts To Moral Turpitude: Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Police Constable’s Termination
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Petitioner, having four criminal antecedents, was not entitled to remain in the service in a disciplined police force.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Petition filed by a Police Constable under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging his termination for suppressing criminal cases registered against him.
The Court upheld the Order of termination issued by the District Commandant against the ‘Home Guard Sainik’ (Petitioner) in terms of the provisions of M.P. Home Guards Rules, 2016 (the Rules). The Gwalior Bench held that the Petitioner’s acquittal in 2 out of the 4 cases pending against him cannot be treated as an “honorable acquittal.”
A Single Bench of Justice Anil Verma held, “Apart from the above, petitioner has concealed the material facts of registration of four offences against him. He has intimated his department regarding one offence only. Suppression of material information regarding aforesaid criminal antecedents also amounts to moral turpitude act of the petitioner.”
Advocate Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate Dilip Awasthi appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner’s services were terminated following the discovery of four criminal cases registered against him.
The Petitioner contended he had informed the authorities about two cases in which he was acquitted but did not disclose the remaining two cases. It was also argued that his services were terminated without affording him the opportunity of hearing as per the Rules, and therefore, the principles of natural justice were also violated.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court stated that the Petitioner was duty bound to disclose the offence registered against him. “In the case at hand, allegation has been levelled against the petitioner is that he has concealed the material information regarding registration of aforesaid four offences against him…Although the petitioner in his rejoinder contended that he has informed the District Commandant, Shivpuri regarding registration of a criminal case for the offences under Sections 354, 456 of IPC against him but he has never disclosed the factum of other three offences registered against him,” the Bench remarked.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (2013), wherein it was held, “Suppression of material information sought by the employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is also separate and distinct from involvement in a criminal case.”
The Bench held that the “petitioner is having four criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled to remain in the service in a disciplined police force. Petitioner did not file any departmental appeal as per Section 26 of the Rules, 2016 before the competent higher authorities, hence, due to availability of efficacious alternative remedy, this petition is also not maintainable.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that four criminal offences have been registered against the petitioner, although out of four, in two offences, he has been acquitted by the competent Court, but he has been acquitted after giving benefit of doubt, therefore, his acquittal cannot be treated as an honorable acquittal.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Shailendra Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:1018)
Click here to read/download the Order
