Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds dismissal of judge for failing to disclose cheating case

Post By 24law
February 27, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of judicial officer Atul Thakur for suppressing his criminal antecedents prior to his appointment as a Civil Judge Class-II in 2007. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain ruled that the non-disclosure of a pending criminal case amounted to moral turpitude, justifying his removal from service.

Court’s Observation on Suppression of Criminal Antecedents

The Court noted that one of the criminal cases against Thakur dated back to 2002 when he was running a petrol pump and was accused of overcharging consumers. Although he was acquitted in 2008 after a compromise, the case was still pending in 2007 when he applied for judicial service. The Court emphasized: “If a person who is selected for the post of Civil Judge suppresses a pending case or a previous prosecution in the matter of cheating, then it cannot be said to be a trivial matter. In any case, cheating is never a trivial matter and it certainly amounts to moral turpitude.”

Rejection of Defense Arguments

Thakur argued that he was unaware of legal matters at the time of filling out the attestation form. However, the Court dismissed this claim, stating: “It is surprising to note that a candidate getting selected to the post of Civil Judge Class - II is projecting himself to be ignorant about legal matters and such ignorance is not pleaded by a School or College student, but by a Civil Judge selectee, that too at the time when he was around 30 years of age.” . Thakur also contended that he relied on his counsel's statement that the case had been compounded, which is why he did not disclose the FIR. The Court rejected this explanation: “It cannot be believed that a Civil Judge selectee did not know that some of the offences are non-compoundable and that the case comes to end not by filing application, but upon passing order by the Court.”

Departmental Inquiry and Dismissal

After his appointment in 2008, Thakur was suspended in 2010. A charge sheet was issued in 2011, stating that he failed to disclose two FIRs—one from 2002 and another from 2007—in his attestation form. The inquiry found that the suppression of the 2002 case was a willful act. Consequently, he was dismissed in 2015, and his request for reconsideration was rejected by the High Court on the administrative side in 2017.

Nature of the Offense and Supreme Court Precedents

The Court held that Thakur’s suppression of his criminal history was intentional, stating: “In Column 12 (ख) specific mention was made that if in response to any of the queries, the answer is 'Yes', then complete particulars of the crime, FIR number, date of challan, name of Court, status of case, etc. has to be given. The petitioner did not disclose the fact of he having been prosecuted. Even if he was under impression that the case has been compromised on 15.11.2007, then it was evident that he had been prosecuted, because FIR was registered in the year 2002 and he was bound to disclose that fact.”

The Court refused to grant Thakur the benefit of Supreme Court rulings that allow employers to consider the nature of the criminal case and socio-economic background of the candidate. It held: “In the present case, the petitioner belongs to an upper strata of society as he admits to belong to business family and running a petrol pump. The query in the attestation form was clear and he is a legally trained person and got selected to the post of Civil Judge. The offence in question also amounts to moral turpitude as it was an offence of cheating along with provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, this judgment does not help the petitioner at all.”