Matrimonial Dispute Acquittal Can’t Bar Compassionate Appointment: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Termination

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of a compassionate appointee, holding that mere non-disclosure of a past criminal case, particularly one arising out of a matrimonial dispute and ending in acquittal cannot automatically render a person unfit for public service.

In a detailed order, Justice Jai Kumar Pillai emphasized that authorities must undertake a reasoned assessment of “unfitness” rather than mechanically acting on adverse police verification reports.

The case arose from the termination of a petitioner who had been appointed as a Peon on compassionate grounds following the death of his father in service. His appointment, made in November 2017, was subject to police verification. While filling out the verification form, the petitioner answered in the negative to queries regarding pending criminal cases. However, a case under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC had previously been registered against him by his first wife.

The petitioner was acquitted in March 2018 after a compromise between the parties. Despite this, the Inspector General of Police declared him unfit for government service on account of non-disclosure, leading to his termination in June 2018. Subsequent representations failed, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Before the Court, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shantanu Sharma assisted by Shri Divyansh Luniya, argued that the termination violated principles of natural justice as no show-cause notice was issued. It was further contended that the alleged suppression was neither deliberate nor mala fide, and stemmed from confusion over the wording of the verification form. The petitioner also stressed that the case was purely matrimonial in nature and did not involve moral turpitude.

On the other hand, Government Advocate Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary defended the termination, submitting that the petitioner had concealed material information and that the appointment order clearly allowed cancellation in the event of an adverse police report.

The Court, however, found the State’s approach legally unsustainable. It reiterated that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to alleviate immediate financial hardship faced by the family of a deceased employee, and not a standard recruitment process governed by rigid rules. Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that such appointments must be assessed with a degree of flexibility to serve their underlying purpose.

Crucially, the Court examined Clause 13.3 of the applicable policy, which permits termination after appointment only if the appointee is found genuinely unfit for government service. It clarified that such a finding must be based on a reasoned and objective assessment, not merely on technical non-disclosure.

In a key observation, the Court noted, “The respondents failed to objectively assess whether a resolved matrimonial dispute rendered the petitioner genuinely unfit for a Class-IV post.” It further held that the offence under Section 498-A in the present context did not involve moral turpitude and had already culminated in an honourable acquittal prior to the termination order.

The Court was also critical of the mechanical reliance on the police verification report, observing that administrative authorities must apply independent judgment. The absence of any well-reasoned satisfaction regarding the petitioner’s unfitness rendered the termination arbitrary and legally untenable.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned communications and termination order, directing the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment in light of its observations within 60 days.

Case Title: Bherugir v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through Veterinary Department and Others

Date of Order: May 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai