Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 17 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 15943 of 2023
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Singh son of Sri Kanhaiya Singh, Resident of Village-
Narayanpur, Police Station-Suryapura, District-Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police Bihar
3. The Director General of Police (Personnel) Bihar
4. The Inspector General of Police, Shahabad Range, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shahabad Range, Dehri-on-Sone,
Rohtas
6. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram
7. The Bihar Police Subordinate Services Commission through its Secretary,
Santosh Mansion, B-Block, near R.P.S. Law College, Raghunath Path,
Police Station Rupaspur, Danapur, Patna- 801503
8. The Secretary, the Bihar Police Subordinate Services Commission B-Block,
near R.P.S. Law College, Raghunath Path, Police Station - Rupaspur,
Danapur, Patna- 801503
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Kr Kaushik, Namrata Dubey, Advocates
For the S t a t e : Mr Manoj Kumar, AC to GP IV
For the BPSSC : M/s Sanjay Pandey, Nishant Kr Jha, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-01-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner
seeking the following reliefs
"(i) For issuance of an order, direction
or a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting
aside the order contained in Memo No 434 dated
24.01.2022
whereby and where under the
candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled
for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
2/14
Police against Advertisement No 01 of 2019
dated 21.08.2019 published by the Bihar Police
Subordinate Service Commission.
(ii) For issuance of an order, direction
or a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting
aside the order contained in Memo No 896 dated
09.08.2023 whereby and where under the appeal
filed by the petitioner against the order dated
24.01.2022 has been rejected by the Director
General of Police (Personnel), Bihar.
(iii) For issuance of an order, direction
or a writ of mandamus for directing the
respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner
to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in
consequence of the petitioner having been
declared successful against Advertisement No
01/2019 by the Bihar Police Subordinate Service
Commission with full back wages and
consequential seniority and continuity of
service.”
2 Facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued
for recruitment against 206 vacancies of police Sub Inspector
bearing Advertisement No 01 of 2019 on 21.08.2019. While
filling up of the online application form on 14.09.2019 (Annexure
P/2), the petitioner had declared that no FIR or criminal case has
ever been registered against him nor any criminal case is pending
against him in any Court of law. Preliminary examination was
conducted on 22.12.2019. The result was published on 28.01.2020
wherein the petitioner was declared successful. Subsequently
mains examination was conducted on 29.11.2020 and the result
was published on 16.01.2021 and the petitioner was again declared
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
3/14
successful. The physical test was conducted on 27.03.2021 and
final result was declared on 17.06.2021. The petitioner emerged
successful in the selection process. Thereafter, the petitioner
reported for document verification and filled up a character
verification form, (Annexure P/8) on 15.07.2021. While filling up
the character verification form, the petitioner declared that there
was no case pending against him.
3 The petitioner was earlier made an accused in
Suryapura PS Case No 143 of 2019 dated 11.09.2019, i e, just
three days before he has filled up his application form (Annexure
P/2). The FIR was under Sections 379, 323, 341, 147, 149 and
504 of the IPC. The petitioner was under an impression that the
said case was closed against him. He went to the concerned Police
Station on 20.07.2021, i e, after he filled up the character
verification form and came to know that charge sheet has been
submitted against him. Immediately, the petitioner disclosed the
pendency of the case before the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas
vide Annexure P/9 on 23.07.2021 and requested him to supervise
the case again so that his selection is not affected as much as he
was innocent and on the date of occurrence, he was taking training
at Dhanbad Training Institute (Safety Camp) while working as
Group D employee of the Railways. He also disclosed the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
4/14
pendency of the criminal case to the DIG, Shahabad Range vide
Annexure P/11 on 27.07.2021. On the direction given by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Bikrmganj, the SHO, Suryapura PS conducted
an enquiry and submitted a report stating that the petitioner was
innocent. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Shahabad Range directed the reinvestigation of the case after
obtaining permission form the Court concerned (Annexure P/13).
Pursuant to the order passed by the Revisional Court, the
investigation was conducted and final form was submitted on
22.04.2023 (Annexure P/15 series) which was accepted by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 01st Class, Rohtas on 24.05.2023 and
the case was closed against the petitioner (Annexure P/16).
Meanwhile, during pending further investigation, the appointment
of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents (Annexure
P/18) on the ground that while submitting the form, he concealed
the material facts. The appeal was also filed by the petitioner
which was rejected on 09.08.2023 (Annexure P/19). Hence, this
petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that at the time of filing up his online application form, the
petitioner erroneously made a statement that no FIR or criminal
case has ever been registered against him. The form was filled by
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
5/14
him on 14.09.2019, and just three days prior, i e on 11.09.2019, the
Suryapura PS Case No 143 of 2019 was registered against him.
The petitioner was not aware of registration of the said Suryapura
PS Case No 143 of 2019 at the time of filling up the online
application form. Subsequently, he knew about the registration of
the said FIR. However, due to mistake, he did not disclose this
fact to the respondents at the time of filling up the character
verification form also. At that time, the age of the petitioner was
only about 23 years. He was a young boy. He has no knowledge
that he had to inform the respondents regarding registration of any
FIR against him. Learned counsel further submits that the
character verification report of the petitioner was received on
10.08.2021 from which it came to light that there was a case
pending against him in which charge sheet has been submitted but
prior to that, the petitioner had already informed the DIG
regarding pendency of criminal case vide letter dated 27.07.2021
(Annexure P/11) and the DIG had also issued a letter on
04.08.2021 directing reinvestigation of the case much before the
character verification report was received on 10.08.2021 which
clearly shows that there was no mala fide intention on the part of
the petitioner to suppress the pendency of the case since he has
himself informed about it to the authorities. Learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
6/14
further submits that the impugned order rejecting the candidature
was passed by the same authority which had directed the
reinvestigation of the case. Once reinvestigation of the case was
directed, the authority concerned ought to have waited for the
result of the reinvestigation of the case before cancelling the
appointment. Once the petitioner was exonerated fully and was
not even sent up for trial, punishing him for merely being falsely
made an accused, is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. The
petitioner was exonerated at the stage of investigation itself by
giving a finding that he was not present at the place of occurrence
on the date of occurrence. In such circumstances, the impugned
orders taking away the right of public employment is too harsh and
inequitable and has the effect of ruining the life of the petitioner.
Reliance has been placed by the counsel on the judgments passed
by the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Police,
Delhi & Another -Versus- Dhaval Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246,
Avtar Singh -Versus- Union of India & Others (2016) 8 SCC
471, Pawan Kumar -Versus- Union of India & Another (2023)
12 SCC 317 and Ravindra Kumar -Versus- State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others (2024) 5 SCC 264.
5 Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
7/14
submits that from the pleading made by the petitioner, it is quite
clear that, while filling up the application form and subsequently at
the time of filling up the character verification form, the petitioner
has not disclosed the criminal case pending against him. Since the
material fact has been concealed by the petitioner, therefore, his
candidature has rightly been cancelled by the respondents. The
petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.
6 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Perused the documents annexed with the petition as well as
counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner.
7 Before going to the facts of the case, it would be
appropriate to quote the observations made by the Supreme Court
on this issue. In the case of Dhaval Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court observed at Paragrapgh 5 as under:
“5. That there was an omission on the
part of the respondent to give information
against the relevant column in the Application
Form about the pendency of the criminal case, is
not in dispute. The respondent, however,
voluntarily conveyed it on 15-11-1995 to the
appellant that he had inadvertently failed to
mention in the appropriate column regarding
the pendency of the criminal case against him
and that his letter may be treated as
“information”. Despite receipt of this
communication, the candidature of the
respondent was cancelled. A perusal of the
order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police
cancelling the candidature on 20-11-1995 shows
that the information conveyed by the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
8/14on 15-11-1995 was not taken note of. It was
obligatory on the part of the appellant to have
considered that application and apply its mind to
the stand of the respondent that he had made an
inadvertent mistake before passing the order.
That, however, was not done. It is not as if
information was given by the respondent
regarding the inadvertent mistake committed by
him after he had been acquitted by the trial
court – it was much before that. It is also
obvious that the information was conveyed
voluntarily. In vain, have we searched through
the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police
and the other record for any observation relating
to the information conveyed by the respondent
on 15-11-1995 and whether that application
could not be treated as curing the defect which
had occurred in the Form. We are not told as to
how that communication was disposed of either.
Did the competent authority ever have a look at
it, before passing the order of cancellation of
candidature? The cancellation of the
candidature under the circumstances was
without any proper application of mind and
without taking into consideration all relevant
material. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly set it
aside. We uphold the order of the Tribunal,
though for slightly different reasons, as
mentioned above.”
8 Subsequently, in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the
law on this issue has been settled by the Supreme Court and it was
observed and held at paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 38.10 as under:
“34. No doubt about it that verification
of character and antecedents is one of the
important criteria to assess suitability and it is
open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the
incumbent, but ultimate action should be based
upon objective criteria on due consideration of
all relevant aspects.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
9/14
35. Suppression of “material”
information presupposes that what is suppressed
that “matters” not every technical or trivial
matter. The employer has to act on due
consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in
exercise of powers in order to cancel
candidature or for terminating the services of
employee. Though a person who has suppressed
the material information cannot claim
unfettered right for appointment or continuity in
service but he has a right not to be dealt with
arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in
reasonable manner with objectivity having due
regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has
to depend upon the nature of post, higher post
would involve more rigorous criteria for all
services, not only to uniformed service. For
lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of
duties, impact of suppression on suitability has
to be considered by authorities concerned
considering post/nature of duties/services and
power has to be exercised on due consideration
of various aspects.
38.10. For determining suppression or
false information attestation/verification form
has to be specific, not vague. Only such
information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If
information not asked for but is relevant comes
to knowledge of the employer the same can be
considered in an objective manner while
addressing the question of fitness. However, in
such cases action cannot be taken on basis of
suppression or submitting false information as
to a fact which was not even asked for.”
9 Subsequently, the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has
been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
10/14
(supra) and it was observed by the Supreme Court at Paragraph 13
as under:
“13. What emerges from the exposition
as laid down by this Court is that by mere
suppression of material/false information
regardless of the fact where there is a conviction
or acquittal has been recorded, the
employee/recruit is not to be
discharged/terminated axiomatically from
service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time,
the effect of suppression of material/false
information involving in a criminal case, if any,
is left for the employer to consider all the
relevant facts and circumstances available as to
antecedents and keeping in view the objective
criteria and the relevant service rules into
consideration, while taking appropriate decision
regarding continuance/suitability of the
employee into service. What has been noticed by
this Court is that mere suppression of
material/false information in a given case does
not mean that the employer can arbitrarily
discharge/terminate the employee from service.”
10 Recently, in the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra), the
Supreme Court, reiterating the earlier judgments in the cases of
Avtar Singh (supra), Pawan Kumar (supra) and Satish Chandra
Yadav -Versus- Union of India (2023) 7 SCC 536 observed and
held at paragraph 34 as under:
“34. On the facts of the case and in the
backdrop of the special circumstances set out
hereinabove, where does the non-disclosure of
the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended
in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In
our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we
do not think it can be deemed fatal for the
appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
11/14as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same
will tantamount to being completely oblivious to
the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast
and diverse country. Each case will depend on
the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon,
and the court will have to take a holistic view,
based on objective criteria, with the available
precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a
one size fits all scenario.”
11 In the light of the above observation made by the
supreme Court on examination of the facts of this case, it is quite
clear that at the time of filling up of application form (Annexure
P/2) on 14.09.2019, the petitioner had declared that no FIR or
criminal case has ever been registered against him though
Suryapura PS Case No 143 of 2019 has been registered on
11.09.2019, i e, just three days prior to filling up the online
application form. The respondent-State has totally failed to
produce any material which shows that on the date of filling up of
application form, i e on 14.09.2019, the petitioner was aware about
the registration of Suryapura PS Case No 143 of 2019 against him.
Thus, the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is acceptable that on the date of filling up of application form, the
petitioner was not aware about any FIR that has been registered
against him.
12 Perusal of the documents further shows that at the
time of filling up the character verification form on 15.07.2021, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
12/14
was within the knowledge of the petitioner that an FIR has already
been registered against him, i e, Suryapura PS Case No 143 of
2019 but he did not disclose this fact while filling it. However,
subsequently before submission of character verification report
and before issuance of any appointment, the petitioner himself
informed the DIG regarding pendency of criminal case against him
vide letter dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure P/11). The document
further shows that on the basis of application form (Annexure
P/11) made by the petitioner himself, the DIG issued the letter on
04.08.2021 directing reinvestigation of the case and subsequently
reinvestigation was conducted and it was found that at the time of
incident, the petitioner was not present on the place of incident and
a final form was submitted before the competent Court of
Magistrate which was also accepted by the concerned Magistrate.
13 At the time of filling up his application form as well
as character verification form, the age of the petitioner was only
about 23 years. He was a young boy. He erroneously, at the time
of filling up of character verification form, did not disclose that
any criminal case is pending against him, appears to be a bona fide
mistake as immediately after some period and before submission
of character verification report as well as issuance of any
appointment order, he himself disclosed the fact regarding
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
13/14
pendency of criminal case against him. It would also be relevant
to mention that as of now Suryapura PS Case No 143 of 2019 has
been closed in so far as the petitioner is concerned and final form
(closure report) has also been accepted by the competent Court.
Therefore, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the cases of Avtar Singh (supra), Revindra Kumar (supra) and
further considering the special circumstances as discussed
hereinabove, I find the mistake committed by the petitioner
regarding non-disclosure of criminal case against him is not fatal.
14 Therefore, the impugned orders dated 24.01.2022
(Annexure P/18) and 09.08.2023 (Annexure P/19) are quashed and
set aside.
15 The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner
in service on the post of Sub Inspector for which he was selected
pursuant to his participation in response to the Advertisement No 1
of 2019 dated 21.08.2019 published by Bihar Police Subordinate
Service Commission.
16 It is made clear that the petitioner would not be
entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which he has not
served the police force.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15943 of 2023 dt.17-01-2025
14/14
17 It is further directed that the petitioner will be entitled
for all notional benefits including pay, seniority and other
consequential benefits.
18 Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of
45 days from today.
19 The writ petition is allowed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 07.01.2025 Uploading Date 17.01.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link