Pranav B Prem

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the termination of a Home Guard Sainik for suppressing information about criminal cases registered against him. The Court upheld the termination order issued by the District Commandant, stating that the concealment of criminal antecedents amounts to moral turpitude and renders the petitioner unsuitable for service in a disciplined force. A single-judge bench of Justice Anil Verma noted, “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.”

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Shailendra Singh Raghuvanshi, was serving as a Home Guard Sainik in District Shivpuri. His termination came after it was discovered that four criminal cases had been registered against him, including charges under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman), 456 (house trespass), 147 (rioting), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC. The petitioner disclosed only one case to his department, contending that he had been acquitted. However, the Court observed that two of the cases resulted in acquittals based on the benefit of the doubt, which cannot be considered "honorable acquittals." The petitioner argued that his termination violated the principles of natural justice under Rule 25(A) of the M.P. Home Guards Rules, 2016, as he was not given an opportunity to be heard. Advocate Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Dilip Awasthi represented the respondents.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to disclose all criminal cases constituted a violation of Rule 23(cha) of the M.P. Home Guards Rules, 2016, which mandates disclosure of criminal antecedents within 48 hours. Justice Verma observed: “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 offenses against him.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (2013), the Court stated: “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 further clarified that acquittals based on the benefit of the doubt do not cleanse an individual’s character.

Findings on Discipline and Alternative Remedy

The Court emphasized the high ethical standards required in the police force, a disciplined service, and held that the petitioner’s actions rendered him unsuitable for continued employment. Justice Verma remarked: “Petitioner is having four criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled to remain in the service in a disciplined police force.” The Court also dismissed the petitioner’s argument that no alternative remedy was available. It noted that the petitioner had failed to file a departmental appeal under Rule 26 of the M.P. Home Guards Rules, 2016. The availability of this alternative remedy rendered the writ petition non-maintainable.

Verdict

In dismissing the petition, the Court emphasized that transparency and integrity are non-negotiable for individuals in public service. Justice Verma concluded: “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.”

Cause Title: Shailendra Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P. & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 13787 of 2020

Date: January-20-2025

Bench: Justice Anil Verma 

[Read/Download order]