Youthful Acquitted Cases Cannot Cost a Policeman His Job, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the dismissal of a police constable who was removed from service after ten years for not listing two old criminal cases, both ending in acquittal, in his recruitment form. The court called the action “manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate and unsustainable in the eyes of law.”

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh of the Jabalpur bench allowed the writ petition filed by Nandkishore Lilhare and directed the State to reinstate him forthwith as Constable. The order was delivered on October 28, 2026.

The dispute goes back to Lilhare’s student days in Balaghat. Between 2000 and 2006, two criminal cases and connected preventive proceedings were registered against him. The first, Crime No. 42/2003, ended in acquittal in 2005. The second, Crime No. 282/2006, arose from a college dispute while he was College President and ended in acquittal in 2008 on the basis of a compromise. Both involved minor offences under the Indian Penal Code.

In January 2011, Lilhare applied for the post of Police Constable and answered “No” to questions on registered offences. In his Attestation Form that March, he answered “Yes” to past prosecution and acquittal but mentioned only a preventive proceeding. Local police stations verified his record and reported nothing else. He was appointed in May 2011 and served for over a decade, earning 119 rewards against a single minor censure.

Trouble began after he cleared the Sub-Inspector examination in 2017. Although he had disclosed both cases in that application, the department declared him unfit, saying a compromise acquittal was not an honourable one. He moved the High Court, and soon after, the department began an inquiry into his 2011 form, culminating in his removal on November 24, 2021.

The Deputy Inspector General, as appellate authority, set aside the removal and imposed a lighter penalty. Seven days later, the Additional Director General of Police started a suo motu revision and restored the removal on April 4, 2022. The Director General of Police rejected his mercy appeal.

Advocate Ayushi Tiwari, appearing for Lilhare, argued that he had been acquitted before applying and answered out of a layman’s understanding, without intent to deceive. She also alleged that the proceedings were engineered to render his pending Sub-Inspector petition infructuous.

Deputy Advocate General Shweta Yadav, for the State, defended the orders, arguing that suppression makes a candidate unfit under departmental rules. She submitted that a compromise acquittal was not a clean one and that Lilhare, by not challenging the appellate order, had accepted the finding of guilt.

The High Court disagreed. Relying on an earlier ruling in Kailash Chandra Sirvi, which held that “an acquittal is an acquittal,” the bench termed the premise that his acquittals made him unfit for police service “wholly unsustainable in law.”

On non-disclosure, the court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which says hiding an acquitted case is not automatically fatal. “Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust,” the Supreme Court had observed. The bench noted that Lilhare was between 17 and 20 years old at the time, the offences were minor, and no case was pending when he applied. By writing “Yes,” he had put authorities on notice, and his full disclosure in 2017 showed “the absence of any deliberate fraudulent design.”

The court said the claim that he was unfit for policing was “completely belied by the department’s own record of rewarding him 119 times.” It found the revision was pursued “mechanically and arbitrarily.” It also called the State’s acceptance-of-guilt argument “wholly misconceived,” since an employee who takes a lighter penalty to protect his livelihood does not lose the right to approach the High Court.

The court quashed the show-cause notice, the revisional order and the DGP’s order. Lilhare will not get back wages, but he is entitled to continuity of service and all notional benefits, including pay fixation, increments and seniority. No costs were imposed.

Case Title: Nandkishore Lilhare vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others

Order Date: October 28, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh

Tags: