Introduction:
In a significant judgment reaffirming the high standards of integrity expected from members of the police force, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the dismissal of a constable who concealed the true nature of his acquittal in a criminal case during the recruitment process. In Santosh Solanki v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP-10511-2019), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 281, Justice Deepak Khot held that although the petitioner had disclosed the existence of a criminal case in his attestation form, he deliberately failed to reveal that his acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt rather than a clean and honourable acquittal. The Court observed that such suppression of material information, particularly in the recruitment process for a disciplined force like the police, justified his removal from service.
The petitioner had applied for the post of Driver (Constable) under the recruitment conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board. He successfully cleared the written examination, physical proficiency test and other stages of selection, following which he joined the police department. Before joining, he was required to submit an attestation form and an accompanying affidavit disclosing any criminal antecedents. While he mentioned the existence of a criminal case in the attestation form, he failed to disclose the same in the affidavit and further represented that his acquittal was clean, despite the fact that it had been granted on the basis of benefit of doubt.
The criminal case against the petitioner related to allegations of unlawful assembly, rioting, brick pelting after elections, causing hurt, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and obscene acts in a public place. During character verification, the Screening Committee examined the petitioner’s antecedents and concluded that although he had disclosed the registration of the criminal case, he had suppressed the true nature of his acquittal. The committee further observed that the acquittal was not honourable and recommended that he was unsuitable for appointment in the police force. Acting upon this recommendation, the authorities terminated his services.
Aggrieved by his dismissal, the petitioner approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, contending that the omission was merely inadvertent and that his acquittal entitled him to continue in service. The case required the Court to determine whether suppression regarding the nature of an acquittal could justify removal from a disciplined force and whether an acquittal based on benefit of doubt could be equated with an honourable acquittal.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that he had never intended to mislead the authorities regarding his criminal antecedents. He submitted that before joining service, he had disclosed the criminal case in the prescribed attestation form, thereby demonstrating his bona fides. According to him, the omission to mention the same fact in the accompanying affidavit was a genuine and inadvertent mistake rather than a deliberate act of concealment.
It was further argued that the criminal case itself arose out of a sudden quarrel following elections and that he had been falsely implicated. The petitioner contended that the trial court ultimately acquitted him of all charges and therefore no adverse inference should be drawn against his character or suitability for public employment. He maintained that once a competent criminal court had acquitted him, the departmental authorities ought not to have denied him employment solely because he had once faced criminal prosecution.
The petitioner also submitted that his acquittal entitled him to continue in service since there was no finding establishing his guilt. He urged the Court to treat the omission in the affidavit as a minor procedural lapse which should not result in the harsh consequence of dismissal from service after he had already joined the police department.
The State opposed the petition and defended the action taken by the authorities. It submitted that the issue was not merely the registration of a criminal case but the petitioner’s failure to make a truthful and complete disclosure regarding the nature of his acquittal. Although the petitioner had referred to the criminal case in the attestation form, he incorrectly stated that the acquittal was not based on benefit of doubt and simultaneously declared in the accompanying affidavit that no such criminal case had been registered against him.
The State argued that these were not accidental mistakes but repeated misrepresentations in documents forming an essential part of the recruitment process. It was submitted that every candidate seeking appointment to the police force is under a legal obligation to furnish complete and truthful information because integrity and honesty constitute indispensable qualifications for police personnel.
The respondents further pointed out that the petitioner had faced prosecution for offences including rioting under Section 147 IPC, causing hurt, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and other offences involving disturbance of public order. These were not trivial allegations but offences affecting public peace and discipline. Since the acquittal had been granted only because the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the petitioner and he received the benefit of doubt, it could not be treated as an honourable acquittal warranting automatic appointment in a disciplined force.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the record, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the petitioner’s removal from service.
Justice Deepak Khot observed that the character verification process revealed an important distinction between mere disclosure of a criminal case and truthful disclosure of its outcome. Although the petitioner had referred to the criminal prosecution in one document, he incorrectly represented that his acquittal was clean and honourable when, in reality, the criminal court had acquitted him only by extending the benefit of doubt.
The Court carefully examined the judgment of acquittal and found that the petitioner had been prosecuted for participating in an unlawful assembly that allegedly indulged in brick pelting after elections. The trial court had not recorded a finding that the allegations were false or that the petitioner had been completely exonerated. Rather, he was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish his identity beyond reasonable doubt. Such an acquittal, the High Court held, cannot be equated with a clean or honourable acquittal.
The Court further observed that the petitioner was fully aware that the attestation form specifically required disclosure of whether the acquittal had been based on benefit of doubt or any similar circumstance. Despite this clear requirement, he answered the relevant column incorrectly by stating “No.” More significantly, in the affidavit submitted along with the attestation form, he went a step further and declared that no criminal case had ever been registered against him.
Rejecting the explanation that the omission was merely inadvertent, the Court held that an accidental mistake may occur once but cannot be repeated across multiple documents. The repetition of incorrect statements demonstrated conscious suppression rather than a simple clerical error. According to the Court, such conduct reflected a lack of candour expected from a person seeking appointment in the police force.
The High Court emphasized that police personnel constitute a disciplined force entrusted with maintaining law and order and protecting public confidence in the criminal justice system. Consequently, candidates seeking such appointments are expected to maintain exceptionally high standards of honesty, integrity and transparency.
Justice Khot observed that even if the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences remained doubtful, the allegations themselves related to participation in brick pelting and rioting after elections. Such conduct, if established, reflects disregard for public order rather than a private dispute between individuals. The Court observed that offences affecting public peace have a direct bearing upon a candidate’s character and suitability for police service.
The Bench remarked that appointing a person whose conduct raises questions regarding respect for law and order would adversely affect the discipline and reputation of the police force. Public confidence in policing depends not only upon professional competence but also upon the unquestionable integrity of those entrusted with enforcing the law.
The Court also accepted the findings of the Screening Committee that the petitioner’s acquittal was not honourable. It reiterated the settled legal principle that an acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not automatically confer a right to appointment in public service, particularly where the employer is required to assess the overall suitability and character of candidates for sensitive posts.
Another important aspect considered by the Court was the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The Bench observed that the offences involving rioting, unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation and disturbance of public order could not be characterised as minor or insignificant. Such allegations, particularly when viewed alongside the petitioner’s suppression regarding the nature of his acquittal, justified the authorities in doubting his suitability for appointment in a disciplined force.
The Court further held that the offences in question fell within the category of conduct involving moral turpitude, thereby strengthening the employer’s decision to deny continuation in service. It reiterated that judicial review in such matters is limited and that the Court would not interfere with the decision of the competent authority unless it was arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to law. In the present case, the Screening Committee had considered all relevant material before reaching its conclusion, and there was no procedural or legal infirmity warranting interference.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Driver (Constable). The judgment reinforces the principle that while disclosure of criminal antecedents is essential, candidates must also truthfully disclose the exact nature of their acquittal. The decision further underlines that appointments to disciplined forces demand the highest standards of integrity, transparency and character. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not amount to an honourable acquittal, and suppression of such material information can legitimately result in denial of appointment or removal from service. The ruling serves as an important precedent emphasizing that honesty during the recruitment process is as significant as the ultimate outcome of criminal proceedings, particularly for those aspiring to serve in law enforcement agencies.