Court mandates reconsideration of petitioner's application following acquittal in resolved matrimonial dispute
In a landmark decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has overturned the termination of a compassionate appointment of Bherugir, whose services were abruptly terminated due to non-disclosure of a resolved criminal case in his verification form. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai on May 4, 2026, underscores the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that the termination was arbitrary and unjustified given the petitioner’s acquittal in the said case.
The case involved Bherugir, whose father passed away while serving as a Peon in the Veterinary Services Department. Following his father's death, Bherugir was provisionally appointed to the same position under the state’s compassionate appointment policy, designed to alleviate financial distress faced by the bereaved family. However, complications arose when Bherugir failed to disclose a pending criminal case involving Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), stemming from a matrimonial discord.
Despite reaching a compromise and securing an acquittal in March 2018, the Inspector General of Police declared Bherugir unfit for service, leading to his termination in June 2018. The petitioner sought judicial intervention, arguing that his termination was executed without a show-cause notice and disregarded his acquittal.
Justice Pillai recognized that the petitioner’s non-disclosure was not malicious, attributing it to a misunderstanding of the verification form's legal complexities. The court highlighted that the compassionate appointment policy does not rigidly bar individuals with resolved criminal backgrounds from employment. The provision under Clause 13.3 of the policy requires a subjective evaluation of a candidate's fitness for government service, which was overlooked in Bherugir's case.
The court drew upon precedents from the Supreme Court, notably the case of The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reiterating the purpose of compassionate appointments—to provide immediate relief to families in distress. Justice Pillai noted that stringent recruitment standards should not be applied to compassionate appointments with the same rigidity, especially when the offense does not involve moral turpitude.
In light of these observations, the court quashed the termination orders and directed the respondents to reassess Bherugir's eligibility for compassionate appointment. The reconsideration must reflect the court’s findings that resolved matrimonial disputes should not disqualify candidates for government service, particularly for non-disciplined, Class-IV posts.
The judgment mandates the respondents to complete the reconsideration process within 60 days, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases where compassionate appointments are challenged based on resolved criminal disputes.
Bottom line:-
Compassionate appointment should not be arbitrarily terminated for non-disclosure of resolved criminal cases, especially when the offence does not involve moral turpitude and was compromised, leading to an honourable acquittal.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 498A IPC
Bherugir v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc id # 2892861
