Ravindra Pratap Sondhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Per: Justice B. P. Sharma

This appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand NyayPeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by appellant assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5019/2026 whereby the writ petition challenging the order dated 24.06.2025 rejecting the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment in the Police Department was dismissed.

The facts reveal that appellant's father, who was serving as Sub Inspector in the Police Headquarters, Bhopal died on 22.06.2024. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment under the prevailing policy. While submitting the attestation form, he disclosed that a criminal case had earlier been registered against him and he had already been acquitted by competent criminal Court prior to death of his father. Since the appointment sought was in Police Department, the matter was placed before Screening Committee constituted for verification of character and antecedents. The Committee examined the judgment of acquittal, the nature and gravity of allegations, the role attributed to the appellant and the manner in which criminal proceedings had concluded. Upon such consideration, it found that the acquittal was not an honourable acquittal but one based upon failure of the prosecution to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and further observed that the allegations involved serious offences. The Committee, therefore, found the appellant unsuitable for appointment in Police Department and acting upon the said recommendation, competent authority rejected his claim by order dated 24.06.2025.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge erred in law in sustaining the rejection of compassionate appointment despite the appellant having been acquitted by competent criminal Court prior to accrual of his claim. It is argued that appellant had made a complete and truthful disclosure regarding the criminal case and had not suppressed any material fact. According to appellant, once the criminal Court had acquitted him after a full-fledged trial, the respondents could not have re-appreciated the allegations contained in the FIR while assessing his suitability. It is further submitted that criminal case arose out of a private dispute and did not involve any conduct amounting to moral turpitude. It is contended that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family of a deceased Govt. servant and rejection of the appellant's candidature defeats the very object of the scheme. In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atul Chauhan vs. State of Haryana and others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25892 of 2025, to contend that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate succour to family of the deceased employee and the authorities ought to have considered the appellant's case in the spirit of scheme.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submitted that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a vested right and every claimant is required to satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable policy. It is argued that Police Department, being a disciplined force, is entitled to insist upon impeccable character, integrity and antecedents of every candidate seeking appointment. It was further submitted that Screening Committee did not reject the appellant merely because a criminal case had once been registered against him, but the manner in which acquittal had been recorded. Since the acquittal was not honourable and the Committee found the appellant unsuitable for appointment in Police Department, the competent authority rightly rejected his claim. It is, therefore, submitted that learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the respondents and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, (2023) 19 SCC 588, has reiterated that higher standards of integrity and discipline are expected from members of police organizations and other disciplined forces. Public confidence in such institutions is of paramount importance and, therefore, while assessing suitability, the employer is entitled to consider not merely the ultimate result of the criminal proceedings but also the nature of allegations and the manner in which the proceedings concluded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that an "honourable acquittal" signifies complete exoneration and does not include acquittals based upon technical grounds, compromise or benefit of doubt. These principles squarely govern appointments to police service where the employer is duty-bound to ensure that only candidates possessing unimpeachable character are inducted into service.

Applying the aforesaid principles, we find that Screening Committee considered all relevant factors, including the judgment of acquittal and the allegations levelled against the appellant, before concluding that he was not suitable for appointment in Police Department. Such assessment lies primarily within the domain of the employer and in absence of arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity, does not warrant interference in judicial review. The record clearly reveals that the appellant was prosecuted in Crime No.217/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 25(1-B) of th Arms Act. Though, learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, by judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No.433/2023, acquitted the appellant, such acquittal was not on a finding of complete exoneration but was recorded by extending the benefit of doubt to him. Learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly refrained from substituting his own opinion for that of the competent authority.

Reliance placed by the appellant on Atul Chauhan (supra) , is equally misplaced. The said judgment reiterates the settled principle that compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right but a welfare measure intended to alleviate the immediate financial distress of the family of a deceased Government servant. It also recognizes that such appointment is always governed by the applicable policy and remains subject to fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility conditions. The decision does not curtail the employer's authority to assess the suitability of a candidate or dilute the requirement of satisfactory character verification, particularly where appointment is sought in a disciplined force like the Police Department. Thus, far from advancing the appellant's case, said judgment reinforces the principle that compassionate appointment is discretionary in nature and cannot be claimed as an indefeasible right. Learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly upheld the decision of the competent authority. We find no infirmity in order dated 26.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5019/2026 (Ravindra Pratap Sondhiya Vs. State of M.P. and Others ).

Accordingly, this writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.