Patna High Court
Umesh Kumar Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 27 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12746 of 2021
======================================================
Umesh Kumar Chaudhary, Son of Mahavir Chaudhary, Resident of Village-
Ghuriyawan, Wazirganj, P.O.-Singhaura, P.S.-Wazirganj, District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik), Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Abhiyaan), Special Work Force,
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Special Work Officer, Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Services Commission,
Bihar, Patna.
6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya.
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Home), I.G. Office, Magadh Range,
Gaya.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3
For the BPSSC : Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 27-03-2025
This Court has heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned
Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned
Advocate for the State and Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, learned
Advocate of the Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Services
Commission (for short 'the Commission'), at length.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
22.01.2021
as contained in Memo No. 22 dated 25.01.2021
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
2/27
passed by the respondent no.4, the Deputy Inspector General,
Special Work Force, Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner has
been declared ineligible for appointment to the post of Police
Sub Inspector on account of concealment of criminal case(s) in
his acknowledgment to be filled up along with the application
form.
3. The facts, which are germane for adjudication of
the issue posed before this Court, in brief, are that the petitioner
who was an aspirant for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector has
submitted his application in response to the Advertisement No.
01/2017 issued by the Commission. In the application form, an
acknowledgment was required to be filled up by making certain
declaration regarding criminal case(s). Admittedly, the petitioner
has filled up the same in the following manner:-
A. Whether any FIR or Criminal Case(s) has ever No
been registered against you?
B. Whether any criminal complaint case or FIR or No
Criminal case(s) is pending against you in court of
law or with police at the time of submitting the
application form?
C. Have you ever been arrested/detain ed in any No
criminal case(s)?
D. Have you ever been tried & convicted or acquitted No
by a court of law in any criminal case(s)?
E. Have you ever been tried & convicted by the court No
by filling any bond for good behaviours etc.
4. The petitioner successfully passed the preliminary
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
3/27
and mains examination and also got qualified in the physical
test. Having been declared successful in all the afore-noted
examination/physical evaluation test(s), the petitioner was
selected on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector vide Memo No.
211/Commission dated 09.03.2019 issued under the signature of
of the Special Works Officer of the Commission with a direction
to the petitioner to ensure his joining along with all requisite
certificates in original, besides photographs and identity proof.
5. During the course of verification, on 27.04.2019,
the petitioner disclosed about two criminal cases viz. Wazirganj
P.S. Case No. 50 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 447, 341, 307, 504 and 354/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, which was later on ended in the acquittal of the
petitioner, vide judgment dated 30.08.2019 passed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Gaya in
Sessions Trial No. 154 of 2016. Another case, which was
disclosed by the petitioner was Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 111 of
2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 354 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein he was
not arrayed as an accused. However, his name was transpired in
the course of investigation but the final form was submitted vide
Final Form No.127/2019 dated 06.07.2019, finding the case not
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
4/27
true against the petitioner. The copy of the judgment and the
final form are marked as Annexure-6 series to the writ petition.
The petitioner submitted his joining on 27.05.2019 along with
the declaration form. However, subsequent thereto, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Home), I.G. Office, Magadh Range,
Gaya vide Memo No.1412 dated 03.09.2019 kept hold the
joining of the petitioner till the final disposal of the criminal
case(s) by the competent court of jurisdiction.
6. A report was called for from the Police Inspector,
Gaya, who in turn, submitted a report suggesting no role of the
petitioner in the afore-noted criminal case(s). The respondent
no.4, for further clarification, vide letter no. 95 dated
27.08.2020, directed the Superintendent of Police, Gaya to make
available the exact status of the case along with a fresh character
verification report. Pursuant thereto, it has been apprised
through a fresh character verification report that the petitioner
has already been acquitted in Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 50 of
2011 vide judgment dated 30.08.2019, besides the report in
connection with Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 2019 wherein a
final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer,
which was duly accepted by the jurisdictional court.
7. The matter had been placed before the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
5/27
no.4, who finally by the impugned Memo No. 22 dated
25.01.2021, cancelled the candidature of the petitioner owing to
concealment of facts in the acknowledgment form and found
ineligible for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector.
8. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, while questioning the impugned order has contended
that admittedly at the time of submission of the final form with
the acknowledgment, the petitioner could not have been able to
mention about the criminal antecedent, but the same was an
inadvertent mistake on account of he being not acquainted with
the computer application. Moreover, during the course of
character verification, it is the petitioner, who voluntarily
disclosed about the two criminal cases, which resulted into
calling for a fresh character verification report. After thorough
verification, a fresh character verification report was submitted,
wherein it was clearly indicated that the petitioner has already
been acquitted with respect to Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 50 of
2011 and so far as Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 2019 is
concerned, final report has been submitted, which was duly
accepted by the jurisdictional court, whereas no cognizance for
the offences alleged has been taken against the petitioner. The
petitioner has voluntarily disclosed about the criminal case(s)
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
6/27
and, as such, said omission may not be considered as
concealment of facts rather the same occurred due to lack of
proper knowledge of computer.
9. Referring to the judgment passed in Wazirganj P.S.
Case No. 50 of 2011 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 154 of
2016, learned Advocate for the petitioner further contended that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt against the petitioner and thus he was
acquitted of all the charges. Moreover, the case is of trivial
nature in relation to an alleged scuffle, which took place owing
to unauthorized grazing of cattle in the field of the petitioner’s
family. So far Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 2019 is
concerned, that also relates to an offence of trivial nature; and
the case has not been found true.
10. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, heavy reliance
has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases
of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others [(2016) 8 SCC
471], Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar
[(2011) 4 SCC 644], Commissioner of Police Delhi and
Another v. Dhaval Singh [(1999) 1 SCC 246], Rajasthan
Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya
[(2021) 10 SCC 136], Pawan Kumar v. Union of India
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
7/27
[(2023) 12 SCC 317] and Ravindra Kumar v. State of UP
and Others [(2024) 5 SCC 264].
11. While summing up the argument(s), learned
Advocate for the petitioner has also taken this Court through the
decision rendered by the learned co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the cases of Sonu Kumar v. The State of Bihar and
Others [C.W.J.C. No. 6827 of 2023] and Rakesh Kumar
Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others [C.W.J.C. No. 15943
of 2023] and contended that in identical facts where the
candidate has failed to disclose the particulars of criminal case
which he was facing at the time of submission of the Form but
subsequently he voluntarily declared at the time of filling up the
Character Verification Form and PM Form No. 101, the Court
categorically held that rejection of the candidature of a
candidate and/or dismissal of the petitioner is unsustainable, as
at least he has given correct information at the time of filling up
the Character Verification Form after placing reliance of the
Apex Court’s decision rendered in the case of Avtar Singh
(supra) and Ravindra Kumar (supra).
12. Per contra, learned Advocates for the State as
well as the Commission while dispelling the contention of the
petitioner, strenuously argued that recruitment to the police
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
8/27
force requires a higher standard of integrity and transparency.
Any misrepresentation or concealment of facts undermines
public trust and the credibility of the police force. Rule 673 of
the Bihar Police Manual mandates any suppression or
misrepresentation of facts during the recruitment process,
particularly in matters related to criminal antecedent(s), is
considered a grave misconduct and a disqualification for
appointment. Rule 673 further emphasizes that candidate(s),
who fail to meet the highest standards of integrity and honesty
during the recruitment process cannot be considered suitable for
service in the police force. The petitioner’s deliberate
concealment of material facts, as detailed earlier, clearly
contravenes this rule. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner
failed to disclose his criminal antecedent at the time of
submission of the application form with acknowledgment and,
as such, suppression of criminal antecedent at the hands of the
petitioner cannot be ruled out.
13. Placing reliance upon Avtar Singh (supra),
learned Advocate for the respondents vehemently contended
that any suppression or misrepresentation of facts in recruitment
process is a valid ground for disqualification irrespective of the
final outcome of the criminal cases. Rule 668 of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
9/27
Police Manual mandates truthfulness in disclosure through
character verification and emphasizes that any false declaration
regarding criminal antecedents shall render a candidate
ineligible for appointment. Further reliance has also been placed
on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Parvez Khan [(2015) 2 SCC 591], wherein the
learned Court emphasized the importance of character
verification in public employment. Referring to a Bench
decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10560 of 2019 [The
Union of India and Others v. Bindeshwari Prasad], it is
submitted that the learned Court upheld the rejection of a
candidate, who failed to disclose material facts during
recruitment.
14. Further reliance has been placed on a decision
rendered by the two Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and
Another v. Anil Kanwariya [(2021) 10 SCC 136]. Taking this
Court through the afore-noted decision, it is vehemently
contended that the question is not about whether an employee
was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has
been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the
credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
10/27
the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the
declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false
declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material
fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts
would have been disclosed, the employer might not have
appointed him. The Court further observed that an employee
cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as
a matter of right when he obtained the appointment/service by
suppressing material fact regarding his involvement in criminal
case.
15. Adverting to the aforesaid facts and the
submissions, the learned Advocates concluded their arguments
that the impugned order cancelling the candidature of the
petitioner is in conformity with the Bihar Police Manual and all
the more fraud vitiates every solemn acts.
16. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the
respective parties and also meticulously perused the materials
available on record.
17. True it is that fraud avoids all judicial acts
ecclesiastical or temporal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and Others
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
11/27
[(2013) 9 SCC 363], has observed that the pendency of a
criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the
information of such pendency. The case pending against a
person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this
information itself amounts to moral turpitude. It is further
observed that the information sought by the employer if not
disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of
material information and in that eventuality, the service becomes
liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or
the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. Time and
again, the Court has emphasized that dishonesty should not be
permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have
defrauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances
the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining
petitions on their behalf.
18. In the case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs
Jagannath [(1994 1 SCC 1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
made it clear that where an applicant gets an office by
misrepresenting the facts or playing fraud upon the competent
authorities, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
19. Now, the question for consideration before this
Court is in a limited bound as to whether the action of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
12/27
petitioner in not disclosing the pendency of the criminal
case(s)/criminal antecedent at the time of filling of the
application form along with the acknowledgment, in the facts of
the case in hand, is said to be a concealment of material facts or
misrepresentation of facts during the recruitment process,
constituting a grave misconduct warranting disqualification of
appointment.
20. Before coming to the issue as formulated
hereinabove, it would be pertinent to summarize the legal
position settled by the Apex Court in various rulings.
21. In the case of Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P.
Tr. Prinl.Sec.Home and Others [(2012) 8 SCC 748], the Court
while emphasizing the need of character verification has held
that “the purpose of calling for information regarding
involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is
for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at
the time of recruitment and suppression of such material
information will have clear bearing on the character and
antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in
service. Verification of the character and the antecedent is
important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is
suitable to the post under the State and on account of his
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
13/27
antecedents, the appointing authority if finds it not desirable to
appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be
unwarranted.”
22. In the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court painstakingly enunciated a guideline to be
followed by the Courts while considering the identical nature of
challenge. The Court having observed that 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. The Court after reconciling all the situation summarized
and concluded in para 38 of the decision, inter alia, that while
passing order of termination of services or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information, the employer may take
notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving
such information. In case there is suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal case, where conviction
or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such fact later comes to
knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse
appropriate to the case may be adopted. In a case trivial in
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
14/27
nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting
slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed
would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in
question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such
suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
The Court further emphasized that in case when fact has been
truthfully declared in character verification form regarding
pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts
and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the
candidate subject to decision of such case.
23. While reiterating the decision afore-noted, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar
(supra), has observed as follows:-
“28. In Mohammed Imran vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 696, no
doubt, a case where a candidate made the
disclosure of criminal case, this Court speaking
through Navin Sinha, J. made the following telling
observation which resonates with the hard realities
of everyday existence:
“5. Employment opportunities are a scarce
commodity in our country. Every
advertisement invites a large number of
aspirants for limited number of vacancies.
But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
15/27for grant of relief where the credentials of
the candidate may raise serious questions
regarding suitability, irrespective of
eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is
very different from other services and the
yardstick of suitability that may apply to
other services, may not be the same for a
judicial service. But there cannot be any
mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral
turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial
service simpliciter. Much will depend on the
facts of a case. Every individual deserves an
opportunity to improve, learn from the past
and move ahead in life by self-improvement.
To make past conduct, irrespective of all
considerations, an albatross around the neck
of the candidate, may not always constitute
justice. Much will, however depend on the
fact situation of a case.”
29. We have also kept in mind the recent
judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra Yadav v.
Union of India [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of
India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43]
and the broad principles set out by this Court in
para 93, especially, paras 93.1, 93.3 and 93.7. Even
the broad principles set out therein recognise that
each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the
public employer concerned and the Court is obliged
to examine whether the procedure of enquiry
adopted by the authority concerned was fair and
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
16/27
reasonable. Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of
India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S)
425] in para 38.2 has held that while passing the
order of cancellation of candidature for giving false
information, the employer may take notice of
special circumstances of the case, if any, while
giving such information. Further, in para 38.4.3 of
Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016)
8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] the
principle that, in case of suppression or false
information of involvement of criminal case, where
acquittal has already been recorded, the employer
can still consider all relevant facts available as to
antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to
the continuance of the employee.”
24. In the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav v.
Northern Railway [(2022) 14 SCC 244], the Court has further
observed that the yardstick as formulated in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra) has to be applied dependent upon the nature of
the post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability
has to be considered by the competent authority after giving due
diligence of various aspects at the given time and no hard and
fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.
25. In Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and
Others [(2023) 7 SCC 536], the Apex Court in no uncertain
terms has held that even in case where the employee has made
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
17/27
declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal
case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents,
and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal
in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a candidate for
appointment to the post. It would still open to the employer to
consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate
concerned is suitable for appointment to the post. In any case, if
it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false
information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his
fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from the
service.
26. Indubitably, the impeccable character and integrity
is sine qua non to be inducted in a disciplined force, which
compelled the legislation to enact Rule 673 in the Bihar Police
Manual, which reads as follows:
“673.(a) Verification roll.– A verification
roll shall be prepared in P.M. Form no.101 and
sent for verification to the home district of every
candidate, for the post of Sub Inspector, Reserve
Sub-Inspector and Constable or any ministerial
post.
(b) In the case of semi-literate men such as those
recruited under relaxation of minimum educational
qualification in rule 663 the questions on the roll
shall be put to the candidate by the reserve officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
18/27or an officer nominated for the purpose by the
Superintendent, and that officer shall write down
the answers, sign these with his full signature and
produce these, together with the candidate, before
the Superintendent. Literate persons shall fill in
and sign the answers themselves. The
Superintendent, if satisfied with the answers, will
sign the roll, have the impression of the man’s left
thumb taken in the space provided and pass an
order for his enlistment.
(c) Enlistment orders.–The order for enlistments
shall then be entered in the order book, the service
book shall be prepared and the verification roll
dispatched to the Superintendent of the district in
which the recruits home is situated. The number
and date of dispatch shall be noted in the proper
place in the service-book, and on the return of the
roll with a report that the man bears a good
character and has made a truthful statement as to
his antecedents, the Superintendent shall initial
this entry, have the necessary entry made in the
service-book and order the verification roll to be
filed. If the character of the man is reported to be
bad or his statement false, he shall be removed
from the force.”
27. Bare reading of the afore-noted prescriptions, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that any suppression or
misrepresentation of facts during the recruitment process,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
19/27
particularly in matters related to criminal antecedent is
considered as grave misconduct and if a candidate failed to meet
the higher standard of integrity and honesty during the
recruitment process cannot be considered suitable for service in
the police force.
28. Similar prescriptions has also been enunciated
under Rule 668 of the Bihar Police Manual, which mandates
character verification with a clear stipulation that in case any
false declaration regarding criminal antecedent is made, the
same shall render a candidate ineligible for appointment.
29. In an identical facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Dhaval Singh (supra) has elucidated that in case
where there was an omission on the part of a candidate to
furnish information about the pendency of the criminal case, due
to inadvertent mistake, the competent authority is required to
consider all relevant materials after proper application of mind.
The Court having found that the mistake was an inadvertent and
it was also obvious that the information was conveyed
voluntarily by the candidate and thus whether it would not be
treated as to whether that application was filed for curing the
defect which was occurred at the time of filling up the form, has
upheld the order of the Tribunal by setting aside the impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
20/27
order of cancellation of candidature, though for slightly different
reasons.
30. Reiterating the observation, afore-noted, the Apex
Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) has held that
modern approach should be to reform a person instead of
branding him a criminal all his life. This Court finds worth
benefiting to encapsulate the relevant paragraphs hereunder:
“2. The respondent herein, Sandeep Kumar
applied for the post of Head Constable
(Ministerial) in 1999. In the application form it
was printed:
“12(a) Have you ever been arrested,
prosecuted, kept under detention or bound
down/fined, convicted by a court of law for
any offence, debarred/disqualified by any
Public Service Commission from appearing
at its examination/selection or debarred
from any examination, rusticated by any
university or any other education
authority/institution.”
Against that column the respondent wrote: “No”.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the respondent should have
disclosed the fact of his involvement in the
criminal case even if he had later been acquitted.
Hence, it was submitted that his candidature was
rightly cancelled.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
21/27
8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi
High Court that the cancellation of his candidature
was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion
in the matter. When the incident happened the
respondent must have been about 20 years of age.
At that age young people often commit
indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be
condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are
not expected to behave in as mature a manner as
older people. Hence, our approach should be to
condone minor indiscretions made by young
people rather than to brand them as criminals for
the rest of their lives.
9. In this connection, we may refer to the character
“Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo’s novel Les
Miserables, in which for committing a minor
offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry
family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his
whole life. The modern approach should be to
reform a person instead of branding him as a
criminal all his life.”
31. In the afore-noted settled legal background, now
coming to the case in hand, there is no dispute that at the time of
filling up of the application form with the acknowledgment, the
petitioner did not mention with respect to the pending criminal
case(s) or criminal antecedent but obviously at the time of
character verification, he voluntarily disclosed about two
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
22/27
criminal cases, which led to keep the joining of the petitioner on
hold till final disposal of the criminal case(s) vide Annexure-8
duly issued by the respondent no.4.
32. The fresh character report duly submitted by the
S.S.P. Gaya to the respondent no.4 under letter no. 3748 dated
08.09.2020 clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was
acquitted of all the charges in connection with Wazirganj P.s.
Case No. 50 of 2011 by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge-VIII, Gaya vide judgment dated 30.08.2019. So far
Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 2019 is concerned, on being
found no complicity of the petitioner, final form has been
submitted, showing him as innocent, which was duly accepted
by the jurisdictional court. Thus, at the time of final
consideration at the level of the respondent no.4, neither there
was any case pending against the petitioner nor there was any
finding of his guilt by any competent court of law.
33. Coming to the allegation levelled in both the
criminal cases, this Court also finds that they are trivial in
nature; Wazirganj P.S. Case No.50 of 2011 was instituted in the
premise of a trifle in respect to unauthorized grazing of the
cattle in the fields of the petitioner’s family resulting into
skirmishes, nonetheless the petitioner has been acquitted from
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
23/27
all the charges beyond all reasonable doubt; and in second case
being Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 2019, there had been an
allegation of abusing and scuffle between the members of two
groups. These were the facts, which led the respondent
authorities to keep the joining of the petitioner in hold.
However, placing reliance upon the prescriptions of Bihar
Police Manual and the fact that the petitioner failed to disclose
the material facts regarding criminal case(s) while submitting
application, the candidature of the petitioner came to be
cancelled.
34. This Court finds substance in the submission of
the learned Advocate for the petitioner based upon the decision
of this Court rendered in the cases of Sonu Kumar (supra) and
Rakesh Kumar Singh (supra), wherein the learned Single
Judge placing reliance upon Avtar Singh, (Supra), Sandeep
Kumar (Supra) and Ravindra Kumar (supra) has observed that if
there is non-disclosure of pending criminal case(s) at the time of
submission of the Form, it stands rectified subsequently at the
time of filling up the Character Verification Form. The mistake
committed by the writ-petitioner(s) regarding non-disclosure of
criminal case against him is not fatal.
35. The Apex Court has time and again cautioned that
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
24/27
no thumb of rule of dismissal and cancellation of candidature
shall apply in all cases rather the cases are required to be
considered in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due
regards to the facts of the case.
36. To meet this contingency, Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Administration, Bihar, Patna vide letter no.
64 dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure-A series to the counter
affidavit), issued a proposed resolution in the light of the
guidelines enunciated in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) that in
case of non-disclosure of criminal case(s), the appointing
authority shall be obliged to take a decision on the merit of the
case, based upon the facts of case to case.
37. In the cases of Avtar Singh (supra) and Sandeep
Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has held that non-disclosure of
pending criminal case/criminal antecedent at the time of filling
up of the application form can be treated as an application for
curing the defect(s) in the initial form, if the fact has been
truthfully declared in character verification form. The Court has
emphasized the modern approach should be to reform a person
instead of branding him a criminal all his life.
38. The respondent authorities while passing the
impugned order of cancellation of the candidature of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
25/27
petitioner ought to bear in mind that the exercise of power has to
be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and having due
regard to the facts, especially, when the factum of pending
criminal cases have been voluntarily disclosed by the petitioner
at the time of submission of character verification form. This
Court finds that while passing the impugned order, the
concerned respondent has failed to consider the facts and
circumstances objectively. This fact cannot also be ignored that
the petitioner was aged about 22 years while filling up the form
and at such age people often commit indiscretion and such
indiscretion may often be condoned [vide Sandeep Kumar
(supra)].
39. So far the contention made by the learned
Advocate for the State based upon the decision rendered in Anil
Kanwariya (supra) is concerned, with due regard, it is clarified
that the facts of the afore-noted case is not identical to the
present one, inasmuch as the candidate in the said case was
already convicted by the competent court, the date on which
application form was filed; though, he was only given the
benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
(for short ‘the Act 1958’). The Court also found that apart from
submitting false declaration, the candidate did not even assail
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
26/27
the order of conviction; and when he was selected, good sense
prevailed and he preferred appeal before the learned Sessions
Court after a period of approximately two years and obtained
the benefit of Section 12 of the Act, 1958, which provides that a
person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the
provision of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attaching to the conviction of an offence
under such law. It was the case, where by suppressing the
judgment afore-noted, the incumbent has obtained appointment.
However, the facts of the present case clearly reflects that the
petitioner had voluntarily disclosed the particulars of the
criminal case at the time of submitting Character Verification
Form.
40. In view of the discussions and observations made
hereinabove as also in the light of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the afore-noted judgments, the order impugned as
contained in Memo No. 22 dated 25.01.2021 passed by the
respondent no.4, is hereby set aside.
41. The respondent no.4 is directed to reconsider the
candidature of the petitioner afresh in view of the observations
made hereinabove.
42. The writ petition stands allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12746 of 2021 dt. 27-03-2025
27/27
43. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
44. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand
disposed off.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 11-02-2025 Uploading Date 02-04-2025 Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link