Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Singh on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.315 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17398 of 2014
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Zone, Bhagalpur.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Division, Munger.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Administration, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Munger, District Munger.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Deo Narayan Singh, Resident of
Village Irdpey, P.S. District Jamui.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP-5
For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 31-07-2025
The present intra Court appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 08.03.2022, passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court in CWJC No.17398 of 2014, whereby the said writ
petition, filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, was allowed
directing the appellants/concerned respondents of the writ
petition to extend all service benefits, i.e., grant of increment, re-
fixation of pay, seniority, pension to the writ petitioner at par
with his immediate junior, who has been appointed w.e.f.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2022 dt.31-07-2025
2/7
14.04.2011
with further direction to reinstate the writ petitioner
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the
judgment.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is
that the writ petitioner was initially enrolled as Home Guard in
the year 1989 on the basis of his tentative date of birth
mentioned as 20.10.1968, as the enrollment of Home Guard was
made on the basis of educational certificate of Class-VIII, in
which his date of birth was mentioned as 20.10.1970. The writ
petitioner got training of Home Guard and necessary certificates
were issued by the competent authority in the year 1989. Due to
less work load, as Home Guard, the respondent also passed
matriculation examination, held by Bihar School Examination
Board in the year 1992, in which, his date of birth is mentioned
as 02.06.1975 and his name is mentioned as “Vijay Kumar”. In
the year 2004, Advertisement No.01/2004, for selection on the
post of Constable, was published in daily newspaper in which,
the age limit for trained Home Guard candidate of general
category was up to 35 years as on 31.01.2004. Respondent
applied for the post of constable, but due to inadvertence, in
place of mentioning his date of birth as mentioned in
matriculation certificate, i.e., 02.06.1975, he mentioned his date
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2022 dt.31-07-2025
3/7
of birth 20.10.1970 as mentioned in the Home Guard certificate.
The Selection Board had verified the identity of the respondent
as Home Guard from concerned Commandant of Home Guard
and verification report dated 09.05.2008 was sent to the
Selection Board. Vide memo No.439 dated 04.07.2008 was
issued by the Chairman, Constable Selection Committee,
Munger Zone, directing the respondent to appear on 14.07.2008
along with all required educational testimonials. Respondent
appeared on fixed date with Home Guard certificate with name
“Vijay Kumar Singh” and date of birth as 20.10.1968, whereas
matriculation certificate with name as “Vijay Kumar” and date
of birth as 02.06.1975. On the basis of anomaly in date of birth
and name, a criminal case was instituted against the respondent
bearing Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.231 of 2008 on
21.07.2008 for the alleged offence under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The respondent/writ petitioner approached this
Court vide CWJC No.162 of 2010, which was disposed of by a
learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18.05.2010,
with liberty to the writ petitioner to file detailed representation
before the Superintendent of Police, Munger in the light of the
earlier decision of this Court. The respondent was appointed on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2022 dt.31-07-2025
4/7
14.04.2011 but based on investigation in the criminal side, the
Disciplinary Authority placed the respondent under suspension
on 04.11.2011 issuing a charge memo on 13.11.2011. The
respondent submitted his reply on 25.11.2012. The Disciplinary
Authority being not satisfied with the respondent’s reply,
proceeded to hold domestic enquiry against him, which was
concluded on 11.07.2013 holding the charge levelled against the
respondent proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on the report of
the Enqiring Officer dated 11.07.2013, issued second show
cause notice to the respondent on 05.08.2013, but the
Disciplinary Authority without considering his defence, by order
dated 30.09.2013, dismissed him from service. On 07.10.2013,
respondent received the order of dismissal vide memo No.2720.
The respondent preferred appeal on 29.10.2013 before D.I.G.,
Munger (against impugned order of dismissal) which was
rejected on 27.06.2014 vide memo No.1391.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge, while
passing the impugned order, has not considered the facts of the
case in right perspective. It is further submitted that learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent has not
disputed the allegations made against him. Learned counsel for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2022 dt.31-07-2025
5/7
appellants further submits that the learned Single Judge has not
considered the evidence found by the Conducting Officer
holding the respondent guilty in the Departmental Proceeding,
and that there was no violation of the principles of natural
justice in the Departmental Proceeding. It was further submitted
that the learned Single Judge has not considered the decision
rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 886 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the scope of judicial review in matters
relating to disciplinary proceedings is very limited.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that on 15.01.2000, vide Memo No.93 (Annexure ‘5’
of the writ petition), Police Department of Respondent-State
took conscious decision that any anomaly in date of birth found
in Home Guard certificate and the Educational Qualification
certificate for the purpose of appointment in regular service, the
date of birth mentioned in the educational qualification
certificate shall be considered. It was further submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent that certain posts of constable
was to be filled up among eligible Home Guard and since
engagement of Home Guard was earlier made on the basis of
tentative date of birth and as such, in engagement of Home
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2022 dt.31-07-2025
6/7
Guard, large scale of discrepancy, in date of birth, was found in
Home Guard certificate in comparison to matriculation
certificate and in such conditions, several candidates were not
allowed to join and one candidate against whom, a criminal case
in response to such difference in date of birth was also instituted.
The said candidate approached this Hon’ble Court for seeking
remedy for his grievance of non-joining, vide CWJC No.5116
of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 24.06.2009
(Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition) directing the respondent to
accept joining.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and
have also gone through the impugned order, passed by the
learned Single Judge. The only question that arises for
consideration by this Court is whether the order passed by
learned Single Judge, requires any interference.
7. On perusal of Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it is
evident that the police authorities have categorically stated that
in case of any discrepancy or anomaly in the date of birth
recorded in the Home Guard records and the educational
certificate of the candidate, the date mentioned in the
educational certificate shall be considered. This position has
been upheld, as reflected in Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2022 dt.31-07-2025
7/7
wherein the Court has affirmed that the educational records shall
be treated as the conclusive proof of age in the event of such
conflict.
8. Furthermore, in the present case, it is clear that the
anomaly, in the date of birth, has already been settled in favour
of the respondent/writ petitioner and it has been held that such
discrepancy, in the date of birth, shall not come into play in the
matter of appointment. In light of the settled legal position and
the evidence on record, the reasoning adopted by the learned
Single Judge appears to be just and proper and warrants no
interference.
9. Thus, finding no merit in the present appeal, the
same is, hereby dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.)
Gaurav Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.08.2025 Transmission Date NA