The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the dismissal of Civil Judge Class-II, Atul Thakur, for willful suppression of criminal antecedents in his attestation form. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain dismissed Thakur’s writ petition (W.P. No. 13526 of 2017) challenging his termination order issued by the State Government on July 13, 2015, and the rejection of his appeal by the High Court on March 8, 2017.
Background of the Case
The case originated from allegations that Atul Thakur, who was appointed as a Civil Judge Class-II in March 2008, failed to disclose two pending First Information Reports (FIRs) in his attestation form. The first FIR (Crime No. 313/2002) was registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, while the second FIR (Crime No. 812/2007) involved charges under Sections 323, 324, 342, and 506/34 IPC.
During the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found Thakur guilty of willfully suppressing information regarding the 2002 FIR, though the charge relating to the 2007 FIR was not sustained. The State Government proceeded with his dismissal, which was later upheld by the competent appellate authority.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments
Suppression of Material Information:
The primary contention against Thakur was that he failed to disclose the pendency of a criminal case at the time of filling out his attestation form. Column 12(क) and 12(ख) of the attestation form required candidates to disclose any criminal records or pending cases.
Despite knowing that FIR No. 313/2002 was pending at the time, Thakur marked “No” in response, thereby committing a serious act of concealment.
Nature of the Offence:
The petitioner argued that the criminal case in 2002 was related to a petty commercial dispute concerning his fuel station business and was later compounded in February 2008, just before his appointment.
However, the court observed that Section 420 IPC (cheating) and violations of the Essential Commodities Act involve moral turpitude, making them non-trivial offenses.
Claim of Ignorance and Bonafide Mistake:
Thakur claimed that he misunderstood the form’s language and was misinformed by his legal counsel that the case had been closed by the time he filled the attestation form in December 2007.
The Court rejected this argument, holding that a judicial officer cannot feign ignorance of legal proceedings, especially concerning his own antecedents.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court relied on a series of Supreme Court judgments, including Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, where it was held that deliberate suppression of pending criminal cases is a serious offense warranting dismissal.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s stance, the Court noted:
“A person seeking appointment as a judicial officer must be of impeccable character and integrity. Suppression of pending criminal cases is a grave misconduct that cannot be condoned.”
The judgment further emphasized:
“If a candidate for judicial service hides criminal antecedents, it reflects a lack of honesty and integrity, which is fundamental to the role of a judge.”
The Court found no merit in the argument that the offense was “trivial” or that Thakur’s economic background should be considered. It held that moral turpitude and honesty were paramount considerations for a judicial officer’s suitability.
Precedents Considered by the Court
State of West Bengal v. S.K. Nazrul Islam (2011) 10 SCC 184 – Held that suppression of criminal antecedents, even in police recruitment, justifies termination.
State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena (AIR 2021 SC 1610) – Established that even an acquittal does not create an absolute right to employment.
Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023 LiveLaw SC 142) – Affirmed dismissal of a judicial officer for non-disclosure of pending cases.
Final Verdict
Dismissing the petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that Atul Thakur’s dismissal was justified, as he had intentionally concealed material information about pending criminal cases. The judgment underscored that judicial officers are held to the highest standards of integrity and that any attempt to suppress criminal antecedents is incompatible with the responsibilities of the judiciary.
