THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusRAJKUMAR YADAV

                 [2026] 3 S.C.R. 448 : 2026 INSC 225

                The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
                                v.
                          Rajkumar Yadav
                      (Civil Appeal No. 3279 of 2026)
                                11 March 2026
           [Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
       setting aside the order of the Single Judge by way of which the
       Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition of respondent wherein
       he had challenged the rejection of his candidature by the screening
       committee for appointment to the post of constable (driver) in the
       police force on the ground that he had criminal antecedents.

                                  Headnotes†
       Service Law – Recruitment in Police Force – M.P. Police
       Regulations – Rejection of candidature by screening committee
       for appointment to the post of constable (driver) in the police
       force on the ground of criminal antecedents, when justified –
       Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition of
       the respondent challenging the rejection of his candidature
       by the screening committee for appointment to the post of
       constable (driver) in the police force on the ground that he had
       criminal antecedents – Single Judge held that the acquittal of
       the respondent in the criminal case was not a clean acquittal,
       but was founded on the ground of benefit of doubt – Order
       set aside by Division Bench holding that the acquittal was
       honourable and directing the competent authority to reconsider
       the case of the respondent – Interference with:
       Held: Impugned judgment set aside – Respondent was charged
       in respect of the offences u/ss.363, 366, 366/120B, 366A,
       376(2)(c), IPC which were the offences in the nature of grave
       moral turpitude – Respondent was found to be involved in the
       serious offences such as kidnapping and abducting a minor girl
       and raping her, which was a conduct undoubtedly amounting to
       moral turpitude – The respondent, though acquitted in the criminal


* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                              449

        The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav


     case, was exonerated only on the ground of benefit of doubt –
     Division Bench of the High Court intruded into the functional realm
     of the screening committee and trampled upon its discretion which
     was validly exercised by the Committee to treat the respondent
     unsuitable to be employed in the police force – The domain of
     considering the fitness and suitability of a candidate for the purpose
     of taking him in service belongs to the employer – But for the
     limited considerations namely arbitrariness, unreasonableness,
     whimsicalness or mala fide approach, the scope of judicial review
     on this score is extremely limited – Moreover, the quality of
     law and order in the society and maintenance thereof depends
     upon the character of the persons serving in the police force – It
     becomes imperative that the recruitees in the disciplined force
     should be the persons beyond reproach and men with rectitude.
     [Paras 9, 9.1, 10]

     Service Law – Suitability of candidate, wisdom of the
     employer – Scope of judicial review, extremely limited:
     Held: The domain of considering the fitness and suitability of a
     candidate for the purpose of taking him in service belongs to the
     employer – A host of relevant consideration would legitimately find
     a place in the process of such consideration by the employer to
     decide whether it is feasible and advisable to offer employment to
     an aspirant – Where the employer or the screening committee of
     the employer has acted to discard, exclude or reject the candidature
     by applying relevant considerations and has not acted arbitrarily
     or whimsically, the courts have no role to interpose – But for the
     limited considerations namely arbitrariness, unreasonableness,
     whimsicalness or mala fide approach, the scope of judicial review
     on this score is extremely limited – Courts are not expected to
     override the wisdom of the employer in judging the suitability of a
     candidate and in considering the relevance of the antecedents of
     the candidate and would not substitute its own view. [Paras 7.3, 9]

     Service Law – Antecedents of a candidate – Role in the decision-
     making process by the employer – Scope of discretion:
     Held: In service law jurisprudence, mere involvement of a person
     in an offence or in a conduct amounting to moral turpitude without
     anything else may become relevant consideration to judge his
     fitness to the post and to assess credentials for allowing such a
     person into the employment – Every moral turpitude has its own
450                                                             [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       counts and degree to become either abhorrent and unacceptable
       conduct, and would also amount to commission of offence under the
       law – In a given case, moral turpitude may not result into a legally
       proved guilt, and it may go unpunished for variety of reasons –
       Still however, it remains a conduct against decency, morality and
       norms practiced in the civil society inviting a serious discount and
       disability for such person in a given situation and given context –
       Whether it is a question of recruiting a person into the service or
       continuing him in service or extending an employee some service
       benefit, his criminal antecedents, involvement in criminal activity,
       the conduct amounting to moral turpitude, registration of a criminal
       case as well as nature of his acquittal in a criminal case are all
       germane considerations to be applied – The employer who would
       be acting through a screening committee to sift such cases, has
       fairly a large realm of freedom to act, though without becoming
       arbitrary – The area of discretion vested with the screening
       committee in this regard is wide enough to permit it to exclude a
       candidate or reject him for the purpose of giving appointment –
       In a given case where the facts are stark, mere involvement of a
       person in an alleged offence or in the act of moral turpitude may
       become sufficient enough to apply it as debilitating factor for such
       candidate to be offered employment – Antecedents of a candidate
       play an important role in the decision-making process by the
       screening committee – This dictum would operate with greater
       rigour when it comes to the recruitment and appointment to the
       disciplined force like police. [Paras 6-7.1]

       Honourable Acquittal – What is:
       Held: An honourable acquittal may be one where court comes
       to a definitive conclusion at the end of the trial upon full-fledged
       appreciation of evidence that the accused had not committed an
       offence for which he was charged – This is in sharp contrast against
       arriving at a finding that because of some lacuna in the prosecution
       case or in the leading the evidence or on account of non-availability
       of credible evidence, the offender is not convicted by giving him
       the benefit of doubt – In such eventualities, the yardstick known
       to the criminal jurisprudence is applied namely that the offence
       has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Distinction between
       an honourable acquittal and the acquittal other than honourable,
       discussed – The acquittal founded on benefit of doubt is an acquittal
       based on technical ground – Giving benefit of doubt and thus
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                                451

        The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav


     not convicting the offender is a technical consideration applied –
     The acquittal for the respondent was governed by such criteria.
     [Para 5.2.1-5.2.3]

     Service Law – Acquittal in criminal case is not always
     conclusive of the suitability of a candidate:
     Held: Even the departmental enquiry can proceed independent
     of the acquittal in criminal case and mere exoneration in criminal
     case would not entitle an employee to be reinstated as a necessary
     sequitur to the acquittal. [Para 5.7]

                               Case Law Cited
     Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. v. Mehar Singh [2013]
     13 SCR 432 : (2013) 7 SCC 685; Avtar Singh v. Union of India
     & Ors. [2016] 7 SCR 445 : (2016) 8 SCC 471; Union Territory,
     Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. [2018]
     1 SCR 112 : (2018) 1 SCC 797; Management of Reserve Bank
     of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [1993] Supp. 3 SCR
     586 : (1994) 1 SCC 541; State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v.
     Parvez Khan [2014] 14 SCR 520 : (2015) 2 SCC 591 – relied on.

                                  List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                              List of Keywords
     Acquittal founded on benefit of doubt; Acquittal on technical ground;
     Exoneration only on the ground of benefit of doubt; Not a clean
     and honourable acquittal; Post of constable (driver); Rejection of
     candidature by screening committee; Appointment to the post of
     constable (driver) in the police force; Criminal antecedents; Ineligible
     for police service; Appointment of police constables; Offences in
     the nature of grave moral turpitude; Serious offences; Kidnapping
     and abducting a minor girl; Raping a minor girl; Conduct amounting
     to moral turpitude; “honourably acquitted”; “honourable acquittal”,
     “acquittal of blame”, “fully acquitted”; Verification of character and
     antecedents; Suitability of a candidate; Screening committee;
     Discretion of Screening committee; Discretion of employer; Police
     service; M.P. Police Regulations; Acquittal in criminal case not
     always conclusive of the suitability of a candidate; Offences in the
     nature of grave moral turpitude.
452                                                                      [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


                                  Case Arising From
       C I V I L A P P E L L AT E J U R I S D I C T I O N : C i v i l A p p e a l N o .
       3279 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2023 of the High Court
       of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in WA No. 297 of 2023

                              Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Sarthak Raizada G.A., Sarad Kumar Singhania, Anil Hooda, Ms.
       Mrigna Shekhar.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Rajiv R. Mishra, Suruchi Yadav, Ashutosh
       Yadav.

                    Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                        Judgment

       N.V. Anjaria, J.

       Leave granted.
       1.1. The appellants are permitted to place on record the additional
            documents, as prayed for.
2.     More often than not, the quality of law and order in the society and
       maintenance thereof depends upon the character of the persons
       serving in the police force. It becomes imperative that the recruitees
       in the disciplined force should be the persons beyond reproach and
       men with rectitude.
       2.1. The exposition of the above narrative is required to be applied in
            its four corners while examining the challenge to judgment and
            order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya
            Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 297 of 2023, which is impugned
            in the present appeal preferred by the appellant–the State of
            Madhya Pradesh.
       2.2. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ
            petition of respondent-original petitioner (hereinafter referred to
            as ‘the respondent’ as per the present position) by judgment and
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                           453

        The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav


           order dated 09.02.2023 in which the respondent had challenged
           the rejection of his candidature by the screening committee for
           appointment to the post of constable (driver) in the police force
           on the ground that the petitioner had criminal antecedents.
     2.3. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment
          and order of learned Single Judge, consequently set at naught
          order-cum-decision dated 16.06.2017, whereby the screening
          committee treated the respondent to be not fit for giving
          employment as constable. It further directed the competent
          authority of the appellants to reconsider the case of the
          respondent, for appointment to the post of constable (driver) by
          treating the acquittal dated 26.09.2014 granted to the respondent
          to be a clean and honourable acquittal and to pass appropriate
          order within stipulated time.
     2.4. The operative part of the impugned judgment and order of the
          High Cout in Paragraph 11 is reproduced herein,
                ‘(i) Impugned order dated 09.02.2023, passed in WP
                No 4212/2017 is set aside.
                (ii) Impugned order dated 16.6.2017(Annexure-P/1 to
                the petition), passed by the respondents is quashed
                for having been passed without application of mind.
                (iii) The respondents/competent authority is directed to
                reconsider the case of the appellant for appointment
                to the post of constable (driver) in Police Force afresh
                by treating the acquittal dated 26.09.2014 to be clean
                and honourable and pass an appropriate speaking
                order in accordance with law.
                (iv) The aforesaid exercise be completed within a
                period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified
                copy of this order.’
3.   In the writ petition before the High Court, the respondent herein
     prayed to set aside the order-cum-decision dated 16.07.2017 of
     the competent authority of the screening committee. The screening
     committee had undertaken the character verification of the respondent
     and after examination, treated the respondent to be ineligible for the
     police service. The respondent had applied for the post of constable
     (driver) in the process of appointment of the police constables in
454                                                            [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       different categories initiated in the year 2016. He was qualified to
       stand at serial No. 336 in the unreserved category. Before joining, the
       respondent submitted an affidavit disclosing the factum of criminal
       case against him, and enclosed copy of the order of the acquittal.
       3.1. In the year 2012, First Information Report bearing Crime No. 33
            of 2012 was registered against the respondent and four other
            accused persons in respect of the offences under Sections 363,
            366, 366-A, 376(2)(f) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal
            Code, 1860, at Begumganj Police Station, Raisen district. The
            chargesheet came to be filed against the respondent and the
            trial took place. The trial court by judgment and order dated
            26.09.2014 acquitted the respondent herein and two other
            accused persons giving them benefit of doubt.
       3.2. In course of the recruitment process, the screening committee
            of the appellant herein undertook the process of character
            verification. The respondent was found to be not fit for the post
            in question on the ground of the said criminal case against
            him. In the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner contended
            inter alia that he was already acquitted and that he had also
            disclosed the registration of the criminal case against him.
            It was submitted that in the M.P. Police Manual, there was
            no provision which created any bar on the appointment of
            candidate against whom a criminal case has been registered.
            It was further submitted that the respondent was selected for
            the post of constable (driver) and not for discharging general
            duty as constable, which aspect could not have been ignored
            by the employing authorities.
       3.3. The stand of the respondent in the writ petition was that though
            the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the trial court,
            it was an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. It was pointed
            out that the respondent was tried for the serious offences in
            the nature of moral turpitude and was acquitted on technical
            ground, therefore, he was not liable to be considered for the
            post of police constable and therefore was not allowed to join
            duty. It was stated that in view of the provision in paragraph
            53(C) of the M.P. Police Regulations, the respondent was not
            fit for the post of police constable inasmuch as his acquittal
            was on technical ground.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                             455

        The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav


     3.4. While dismissing the writ petition and negativing the prayer of
          the respondent, learned single judge took note of paragraph
          53(C) of the M.P. Police Regulations. He further took the
          view that the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case
          was not a clean acquittal, but was founded on the ground of
          benefit of doubt, and when there was no clean acquittal, the
          respondent was rightly refused induction into the service in the
          police department. According to the Division Bench, however,
          the acquittal was honourable as per paragraph 90 and 92 of
          the judgment and that it was incorrect to project the acquittal
          not to be the clean acquittal.
4.   Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sarthak Raizada with learned advocate-
     on-record, Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania for the appellant-State along
     with other assisting advocates, learned senior advocate Mr. Santosh
     Kumar with learned advocate Mr. Rajiv R. Mishra and other assisting
     advocates, at length. Both the learned advocates made this Court
     travel through the record of the case including the judgment of the
     trial court which acquitted the respondent.
5.   In the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the
     High Court has taken the view that in light of what is observed in
     paragraph 90 and 92 of the judgment of the trial court, the respondent
     was honourably acquitted. While it may be true that the trial court
     discussed the evidence before recording the acquittal, there is no
     gainsaying that what the court held was that the charges against
     the four accused including the respondent herein were not proved
     beyond reasonable doubt.
     5.1. The relevant part of paragraph 90, is extracted herein,
                    ‘Involvement of the remaining accused except
                    accused Dhaniram in the crime and the criminal
                    conspiracy hatched by them is doubtful. Therefore,
                    the other four accused are entitled to get the benefit
                    of doubt. The charge against them is not proved
                    beyond reasonable doubt.’
           5.1.1. In the same way, the following was recorded in
                  paragraph 92,
                         ‘The court concludes that the charges
                         against the remaining accused Delan, Vishal,
456                                                            [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                         Rajkumar and Mahesh are not proved beyond
                         reasonable doubt for criminal conspiracy
                         and kidnapping of minor girl from lawful
                         guardianship, kidnapping of minor girl for illicit
                         sexual intercourse and criminal conspiracy for
                         rape under Section 363 alternative, Section
                         363/120B, Section 366 alternative, Section
                         366/120-B, Section 366-A and Section 376
                         (2) (c) / 120-B IPC. The above four accused
                         are entitled to be acquitted of all the above
                         charges.’
       5.2. The concept of “honourably acquitted”, often becomes hazy.
            This court on several occasions observed that the expressions
            “honourable acquittal”, “acquittal of blame”, “fully acquitted”
            are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the
            Penal Code, 1860. These phrases are coined in the judicial
            pronouncements.
            5.2.1. An honourable acquittal may be one where court comes
                   to a definitive conclusion at the end of the trial upon
                   full-fledged appreciation of evidence that the accused
                   had not committed an offence for which he was charged.
                   This would stand in sharp contrast against arriving at a
                   finding that because of some lacuna in the prosecution
                   case or in the leading the evidence or on account of
                   non-availability of credible evidence, the offender is
                   not convicted by giving him the benefit of doubt. In
                   such eventualities, the yardstick known to the criminal
                   jurisprudence is applied namely that the offence has to
                   be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
            5.2.2. A simple example would explain the nicety of the
                   distinction between an honourable acquittal and the
                   acquittal other than honourable. In a given case, say
                   a person is charged for committing misappropriation
                   of money. After trying the accused for the offence, if
                   the court comes to a clear conclusion that the person
                   has not committed misappropriation and has not
                   defalcated money, it amounts to a clean chit in respect
                   to the offence. It is suggestive of the factum that the
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                                  457

         The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav


                       misappropriation was not done. However, if the court
                       holds that charge of misappropriation is not proved on
                       the account of weak prosecution case or weak evidence
                       and therefore it is not possible to conclusively record
                       finding about the commission of offence, the acquittal
                       which may follow in such circumstances cannot be said
                       to be an honourable acquittal.
            5.2.3. The acquittal founded on benefit of doubt is an acquittal
                   based on technical ground. Giving benefit of doubt
                   and thus not convicting the offender is a technical
                   consideration applied. The acquittal for the respondent
                   was governed by such criteria.
     5.3. In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Mehar
          Singh 1, this court had on occasion to consider the question
          whether the candidature of the respondents who had revealed
          of their involvement in a criminal case by mentioning such fact
          in their application/attestation form while applying for a post of
          constable in Delhi Police, who were provisionally selected subject
          to verification of their antecedents and who were subsequently
          acquitted/discharged in the criminal case, could be cancelled
          by the screening committee of the Delhi Police on the ground
          that they were not found suitable for appointment to the post
          of constable.
            5.3.1. This Court observed that the screening committee was
                   within its right to cancel the candidature of a candidate
                   even if the candidate was acquitted of the criminal
                   charges, by taking into account the nature of acquittal.
                   It was observed that persons involved in grave cases
                   of moral turpitude could be properly kept out of police
                   force even if they are acquitted or discharged.
            5.3.2. Stated this Court thus,
                            ‘It is only experienced officers of the screening
                            committee who will be able to judge whether
                            the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely
                            to revert to similar activities in future with more



1   (2013) 7 SCC 685
458                                                          [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                         strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post
                         in a police force. The screening committee
                         will have to consider the nature and extent
                         of such person’s involvement in the crime
                         and his propensity of becoming a cause for
                         worsening the law and order situation rather
                         than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy
                         framed by the Delhi Police does not merit
                         any interference from this Court as its object
                         appears to be to ensure that only persons with
                         impeccable character enter the police force.’
                                                              (Para 23)

            5.3.3. It was emphasised that satisfactory character antecedent
                   has to be insisted for, when a person wishes to join the
                   disciplined force,
                         ‘The police force is a disciplined force.
                         It shoulders the great responsibility of
                         maintaining law and order and public order
                         in the society. People repose great faith
                         and confidence in it. It must be worthy of
                         that confidence. A candidate wishing to join
                         the police force must be a person of utmost
                         rectitude. He must have impeccable character
                         and integrity. A person having criminal
                         antecedents will not fit in this category.’
                                                              (Para 35)

       5.4. The purpose and utility of verification of a character and
            antecedents to judge the suitability of a person to the post need
            not be overemphasized. In Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
            & Ors.2. It was observed that it is one of the important criteria
            which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made
            and that an incumbent should not have antecedents of such a
            nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post.



2   (2016) 8 SCC 471
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                                 459

         The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav


            5.4.1. It was stated,
                             ‘The verification of antecedents is necessary
                             to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process
                             if a declarant is found to be of good moral
                             character on due verification of antecedents,
                             merely by suppression of involvement in trivial
                             offence which was not pending on date of
                             filling attestation form, whether he may be
                             deprived of employment? There may be case
                             of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in
                             which employee has been acquitted but due
                             to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt.’
                                                                   (Para 29)

     5.5. In Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Vs.
          Pradeep Kumar & Anr.3, the respondents were declared
          successful in the recruitment for the post of constable in
          Chandigarh Police after clearing the physical efficiency test,
          physical measurement test, written test and interview. The
          respondents were prosecuted in criminal trial for the offences
          under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal
          Code, 1860 and were acquitted by the trial court. When the
          matter was referred to the screening committee as per the
          recruitment guidelines, the screening committee found that the
          respondents were not suitable for appointment as constables.
            5.5.1. The Tribunal set aside the order of the screening
                   committee and directed the authorities to consider the
                   case of the respondents for appointment to the said post.
                   The High Court refused to interfere with the order of the
                   tribunal. This Court however did not approve the view
                   taken by the tribunal and the High Court and restored
                   the order of the screening committee.
            5.5.2. The following principles came to enunciated by this court,
                       (a)   The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive
                             of the suitability of the candidates in respect of


3   (2018) 1 SCC 797
460                                                     [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                    Supreme Court Reports


                    the post concerned. Even if a person is acquitted
                    or discharged, it cannot always been inferred that
                    he was falsely involved or he had no criminal
                    antecedents.
                                                               (Para 10)
              (b)   Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically
                    entitle a candidate for appointment to the post.
                    Still, it is open to the employer to consider the
                    antecedents and examine whether the person is
                    suitable for appointment to the post.
                                                               (Para 13)
              (c)   In a case where the employee has made declaration
                    truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer
                    still has the right to consider antecedents and
                    cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
                                                               (Para 12)
       5.5.3. It was reiterated that police service requires candidate
              with good character, integrity and clean antecedents,
                    ‘Police service requires candidates of good
                    character, integrity and clean antecedents.
                    The police force is a disciplined force.
                    It shoulders the great responsibility of
                    maintaining law and order and public order
                    in the society. People repose great faith
                    and confidence in it. It must be worthy of
                    that confidence. A person having criminal
                    antecedents will not fit in this category. Even
                    if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal
                    case, that acquittal or discharge order will
                    have to be examined to see whether he has
                    been completely exonerated in the case
                    because even a possibility of his taking to the
                    life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline
                    of the police force.’
                                                     (Para 11, 13)
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                               461

          The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav


      5.6. In Union Territory, Chandigarh administration (supra), this
           Court underlined that acquittal in criminal case is not always
           conclusive of the suitability of a candidate,
                    ‘The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of
                    the suitability of the candidates in the post concerned.
                    If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always
                    be inferred that he was falsely involved, or he had
                    no criminal antecedents.’
                                                                 (Para 10)

      5.7. The law is also well settled that even the departmental enquiry
           can proceed independent of the acquittal in criminal case
           and that mere exoneration in criminal case would not entitle
           an employee to be reinstated as a necessary sequitur to the
           acquittal. In Management of Reserve Bank of India, New
           Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal4, this Court held that when the
           High Court acquitted the respondent employee by giving benefit
           of doubt, the bank rightly refused to reinstate him in service
           on the ground that it was not an honourable acquittal. Further,
           the criminal antecedents of an employee and the nature of his
           acquittal is considered germane to be applied by the employer
           even while determining the entitlement of pay and allowance
           for the period concerned to the employee or for treating the
           period of suspension on duty.
6.    As is already stated, in the present case, the respondent was charged
      in respect of the offences under Sections 363, 366, 366/120B, 366A,
      376(2)(c) which were the offences in the nature of grave moral
      turpitude. Every moral turpitude has its own counts and degree to
      become either abhorrent and unacceptable conduct, and would also
      amount to commission of offence under the law. In a given case,
      moral turpitude may not result into a legally proved guilt, and it may
      go unpunished for variety of reasons. Still however, it remains a
      conduct against decency, morality and norms practiced in the civil
      society inviting a serious discount and disability for such person in
      a given situation and given context.


4    (1994) 1 SCC 541
462                                                             [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       6.1. In service law jurisprudence, mere involvement of a person in
            an offence or in a conduct amounting to moral turpitude without
            anything else may become relevant consideration to judge his
            fitness to the post and to assess credentials for allowing such
            a person into the employment.
7.     The necessary conclusion from the parameters and principles
       summarised above, is that whether it is a question of recruiting a
       person into the service or continuing him in service or extending an
       employee some service benefit, his criminal antecedents, involvement
       in criminal activity, the conduct amounting to moral turpitude,
       registration of a criminal case as well as nature of his acquittal in
       a criminal case are all germane considerations to be applied. The
       employer who would be acting through a screening committee to
       sift such cases, has fairly a large realm of freedom to act, though
       without becoming arbitrary.
       7.1. The area of discretion vested with the screening committee in
            this regard is wide enough to permit it to exclude a candidate
            or reject him for the purpose of giving appointment. In a given
            case where the facts are stark, mere involvement of a person
            in an alleged offence or in the act of moral turpitude may
            become sufficient enough to apply it as debilitating factor for
            such candidate to be offered employment. Antecedents of a
            candidate play an important role in the decision-making process
            by the screening committee. This dictum would operate with
            greater rigour when it comes to the recruitment and appointment
            to the disciplined force like police.
       7.2. The position of law was highlighted again in the following
            observations by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh &
            Ors. Vs. Parvez Khan5,
                    ‘…it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the
                    police service must be worthy of confidence and
                    must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have
                    impeccable character and integrity. A person having
                    criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even
                    if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed
                    that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are


5    (2015) 2 SCC 591
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                          463

        The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav


                likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not
                to enter the police force.’
                                                              (Para 13)

           7.2.1. It was further stated,
                        ‘No doubt the screening committee has not
                        been constituted in the case considered
                        by this Court, as rightly pointed out by the
                        learned counsel for the respondent, in the
                        present case, the Superintendent of Police
                        has gone into the matter. The Superintendent
                        of Police is the appointing authority. There is
                        no allegation of mala fides against the person
                        taking the said decision nor the decision is
                        shown to be perverse or irrational.’
                                                              (Para 13)

     7.3. The domain of considering the fitness and suitability of a candidate
          for the purpose of taking him in service belongs to the employer.
          A host of relevant consideration would legitimately find a place
          in the process of such consideration by the employer to decide
          whether it is feasible and advisable to offer employment to an
          aspirant. Where the employer or the screening committee of the
          employer has acted to discard, exclude or reject the candidature
          by applying relevant considerations and has not acted arbitrarily
          or whimsically, the courts have no role to interpose. Of course,
          a demonstrably mala fide approach by the employer would give
          room to the courts to exercise the power of judicial review.
8.   In Mehar Singh (supra) and in Parvez Khan (supra), this court
     opined that the decision of the screening committee must be taken as
     final unless as it is shown to be mala fide. The screening committee
     also must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and
     must examine the candidate with utmost care for the candidate’s
     character.
9.   But for the above limited considerations namely arbitrariness,
     unreasonableness, whimsicalness or mala fide approach, the scope
     of judicial review on this score is extremely limited. The courts are
     not expected to override the wisdom of the employer in judging the
464                                                         [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       suitability of a candidate and in considering the relevance of the
       antecedents of the candidate and would not substitute its own view.
       9.1. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the screening
            committee of the appellant rejected the candidature of the
            respondent for the post of constable (driver) in police force
            as per the decision dated 16.06.2017. What weighed with the
            screening committee was that the respondent was found to
            be involved in the serious offences such as kidnapping and
            abducting a minor girl and raping her, which was a conduct
            undoubtedly amounting to moral turpitude. The respondent,
            though acquitted in the criminal case, was exonerated only on
            the ground of benefit of doubt.
       9.2. Learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition
            upholding the decision of the screening committee. The judgment
            and order of learned Single Judge of the High Court, which was
            eminently just and legal, came to be reversed by the Division
            Bench of the High Court for not good reason, directing that the
            acquittal ought to have been treated as an honourable acquittal
            and required the appellant-employer to consider the respondent
            for appointment to the post. The Division Bench of the High
            Court thereby intruded into the functional realm of the screening
            committee and trampled upon its discretion which was validly
            exercised by the Committee to treat the respondent unsuitable
            to be employed in the police force.
10. For the foregoing discussion and reason, the impugned judgment and
    order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High
    Court allowing Writ Appeal No. 297 of 2023 cannot be sustained in
    eye of law. The same is set aside.
11. The appeal stands allowed.
       All Interlocutory Applications, as may be pending, will not survive in
       view of the disposal of the main appeal.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey