MP High Court Upholds Removal Of Police Constable For Concealing His Acquittal In Riots Case Was Not 'Honourable'

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a constable from the police force, observing that he supressed the fact that his acquittal from the case of rioting and brick pelting was not clean and honourable. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 281]

Emphasising that appointment of such a character would question the discipline and reputation of the police force, the bench of Justice Deepak Khot held;

"As discussed hereinabove, the involvement of the petitioner may be doubtful in the commission of offence but the nature of allegation shows that the petitioner in utter disrespect to law and order has participated in brick pelting after the election. Such offence is not against any person but it can be safely said to be against the public at large which definitely creates an image of a person and also shows the character. If a person with such character is appointed then definitely it would be a question mark on a disciplined force in regard to the discipline and reputation of the police force". 

A petition was filed by a candidate applying for the post of Driver (constable) under the MP Professional Examination Board. He qualified for the written examination and the physical proficiency test. He even joined the post. 

However, before joining, he filled out a prescribed attestation form in which he disclosed a criminal case registered against him. He argued that he mistakenly omitted the disclosure in the accompanying affidavit. The candidate claimed that he was acquitted of the said case by a competent court. 

The candidate argued that the criminal case was registered against him over a sudden quarrel and that he was unnecessarily implicated. 

Subsequently, the department initiated an enquiry into his character and called for his explanation. The matter was placed before the screening committee, which recorded that the candidate did not suppress the information regarding the criminal case. However, the committee also opined that the candidate's acquittal was not clean or honourable. The candidate was thus removed from the post. 

The respondent argued that although he mentioned the criminal case in his attestation form but omitted the said disclosure in the affidavit submitted at the time of joining. He argued that the omission of disclosure cannot be treated as a mere inadvertent mistake because it was an essential document for the appointment, and he was under an obligation to make a complete and truthful disclosure. 

The respondent claimed that the candidate was accused of rioting (Section 147), causing hurt (Section 294), obscene acts in public (Section 294), wrongful restraint (Section 341) and criminal intimidation (Section 506) of the IPC. 

The court noted that the candidate was acquitted of making unlawful assembly, wherein they pelted bricks after the elections had ended. From the court order, it was found that two men were implicated, and the candidate was given the benefit of the doubt because no one identified him. 

Examining the character verification report, the court noted that even though the candidate disclosed the criminal case and acquittal in registration, the acquittal was not clean. Further the candidate wrongly mentioned that the acquittal was clean. 

The bench noted, "It is also found that the police force being a disciplined force require exceptional character to maintain law and order of the State. It is expected from a police personnel to behave and conduct himself with high degree of integrity and reputation. It is also found that the offence, which was registered against the petitioner, was not petty offence".

The court noted that the candidate, despite knowing that the attestation form contains a field about disclosure regarding whether the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt or withdrawn, he mentioned 'no' in the form, which demonstrates the candidate's "utter disregard" for the question. 

The court noted that the candidate marked no in the attestation form despite knowing that his acquittal was based on the benefit of the doubt. The court further noted that the candidate made the same omission in the affidavit, which ought to be submitted with the attestation form. Thus, the bench held:

"The mistake can be committed at one time, not by repeating it in the affidavit because such statement leads to suppression of fact despite having knowledge that the petitioner was acquitted which was based on benefit of doubt, but, the same has not been disclosed in the attestation form and moreover, in the affidavit it has been stated that no such criminal case has been registered against him". 

Emphasizing that the candidate's involvement may be doubtful in the criminal case, the court noted that the nature of the allegations- brick pelting- shows the candidate's utter disrespect for law and order. 

Noting that the candidate had disclosed the criminal case but supressed the information of acquittal, the petition is liable to fail. 

The bench also noted that the offences which were registered against the candidate fall under the definition of moral turpitude and therefore the action of the authority was justified. 

Case Title: Santosh Solanki v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-10511-2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 281

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal with Advocate Amit Garg

For State: Government Advocate Naveen Ahuja

Click here to read/download the Order