Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Termination of Police Constable for Suppressing Criminal Antecedents; Imposes 10K Cost

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the termination of a police constable from service for suppressing information regarding the criminal cases registered against him. The Bench further imposed cost of Rs.10,000 on him for coming to the Court with unclean hands.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed-

The man who comes to the Court with unclean hands would not be entitled to any relief. He has deliberately suppressed this information. This is not a first case of any criminal offence lodged against him. This is the second time that he is involved in criminal offences. Therefore, we are of the view that consideration of the contention with regard to the merit of the appointment order, in our considered view, may not be necessary. The foundation of this case itself suffers from suppression of fact.

Facts of the case were that the Appellant had applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Police Department. His application was rejected on the ground that he had suppressed information with regard to registration of a criminal case against him. To challenge his rejection, he filed a petition before the Court. The Writ Court had disposed of his plea by directing the authorities to consider and decide his representation.

Thereafter, his appointment order for the above mentioned post was issued. However, much after the appointment order was passed, the Appellant filed an affidavit providing information of another criminal case registered against him. On learning about the same, the Authority passed the impugned order, whereby his services were terminated on the ground that the Appellant had suppressed the fact with regard to the pendency of the criminal case against him. Aggrieved, the Appellant moved the Court to challenge the order of his termination from service.

Considering the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Writ Court had concluded that the conduct of the Appellant was unbecoming of a member of the Police force and his action in suppressing information could not be condoned. Accordingly, his petition was dismissed. Challenging the said dismissal, the Appellant preferred an appeal.

Placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., the Appellant contended before the Court that the extent of suppression and what has been suppressed has to be looked into. He asserted that every case cannot be considered in a straight jacket formula and that facts and circumstances of each case are different.

Rejecting the contentions raised by the Appellant, the Court observed that the Writ Court had earlier granted relief to him being oblivious to the fact that there was another criminal case registered against him. The Court noted that the Appellant had deliberately suppressed information, thereby compelling the Writ Court to pass an illegal order-

We asked a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is his reply to the suppression of this fact. His plea is that he is ignorant of it. However, we cannot accept the fact that an accused can be ignorant of a criminal case lodged against him. Even so far as the proximity is concerned, the criminal case was lodged almost one year earlier to the passing of the order. Therefore, the petitioner should have been honest in bringing this fact to the notice of the Court. He has deliberately suppressed the information and therefore, compelled the learned Single Judge to pass an illegal order in his favour.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the appeal was sans merit and the same was liable dismissed.

Case Title : PUSHPENDRA SINGH DANGI v THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH and ors

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 215

Click Here To Read/Download Order