THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus BHUPENDRA YADAV

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 20-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 438 : 2023 INSC 837
438
CASE DETAILS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
v.
BHUPENDRA YADAV
(Civil Appeal No. 5984 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
[HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the appellants have erred in rejecting 
the candidature of the respondent to the post of Constable, despite the latter 
having truthfully disclosed in his affi  davit the fact that he had faced trial in 
a criminal case which had resulted in his acquittal.
Service Law – Rejection of candidature by the departmental 
authorities on basis of moral turpitude – Propriety:
Held: An employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an 
omission in the disclosure made by a candidate – While doing so, the 
employer must act with prudence, keep in mind the nature of the post 
and the duties required to be discharged – Higher the post, more stringent 
ought to be the standards to be applied – Even if a truthful disclosure has 
been made, the employer is well within its right to examine the fi tness of a 
candidate and in a concluded criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the 
off ence and verify whether the acquittal is honourable or benefi t has been 
extended on technical reasons – If the employer arrives at a conclusion 
that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfi t for the post, he may 
not be appointed or continued in service – In the instant case, even though 
the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal 
case which was decided by the trial Court, on perusing the facts of the said 
case, it is clear that it was not a case of clean acquittal – It is evident from 
the facts narrated that after the charge-sheet was fi led, the respondent had 
arrived at a compromise with the complainant, based on which the off ence 
u/s. 341 IPC was compounded – As for the remaining off ences for which 
the respondent was charged i.e. s.354(D) of the IPC and s.11 (D)/12 of the 
439
POCSO Act, they were non compoundable and therefore, the matter was 
taken to trial – The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on 
account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by 
the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile – In 
such circumstances, the respondent’s plea that he had been given a clean 
acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits – Mere acquittal 
of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him 
to being declared fi t for appointment to the subject post. [Paras 10, 16, 19]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Avatar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 
7 SCR 445; Daya Shankar Yadav. v. Union of India and Others (2010) 14 
SCC 103 : [2010] 13 SCR 1076; Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam 
Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwaria (2021) 10 SCC 136 – relied on.
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh 
(2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432; Union Territory, Chandigarh 
Administration and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and Others (2018) 1 SCC 
797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112; Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Another 2022 
SCC Online SC 532; Ashutosh Pawar v. High Court of M.P and Another 
2018 SCC Online MP 72; Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 
8 SCC 748 : [2012] 6 SCR 1047; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. 
Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733: [2018] 13 SCR 1133; R.K. Kapur 
v. Union of Indian and Another AIR 1964 SC 787 : [1964] SCR 431; State 
of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591 : [2014] 
14 SCR 520 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5984 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2018 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in WA No.46 of 2018.
Appearances:
Bharat Singh, AAG, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, DAG, Abhimanyu 
Singh, Sunny Choudhary, Shashank Shekhar, Sumit Arora, Advs. for the 
Appellants.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS v. 
BHUPENDRA YADAV
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Ms. Savitri Pandey, Bhoopesh Pandey, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Srilok 
Nath Rath, Ms. Reena Rao, Ms. Akansha Rai, Ms. Apeksha Rai, Pramod 
Kumar, Vivekanand Rana, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1.Leave granted.
2. A challenge has been laid in the present appeal to the judgement 
dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.