Patna High Court
Sonu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6827 of 2023
======================================================
Sonu Kumar Son of Sri Bindeshwar Mahto Resident of Village- Gonhar
Nawada, P.O.- Kharaj Jitwarpur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Samastipur, Bihar-
848134. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Director General of Police, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police, (Budget, Appeal and Welfare),
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.
6. The Deputy Superintendent Police, Samastipur.
7. The Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission, Through the Secretary,
Santosh Mansion, B Block Near RPS Law College, Raghunathpur, Danapur,
Patna- 801503.
8. The Secretary, Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission, Santosh
Mansion, B Block Near RPS Law College, Raghunathpur, Danapur, Patna.-
801503.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Kaushik, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, SC-8.
For the B.P.S. S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate.
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2025
Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Anil Kumar, learned
SC-8 for the State and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel along
with Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the Bihar
Police Subordinate Service Commission.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
2/27
present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s),
which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"i. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of
certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order
contained in Memo No. 1742 dated 20.06.2022 and the
consequential order contained in Memo No. 1620 dated
27.06.2020
whereby and whereunder the petitioner who
was appointed Sub- Inspector of Police has been dismissed
from service allegedly on the ground that he had suppressed
the pendency of criminal case against him in his
application form against advertisement number 01/2017.
ii. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of
certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated
14.02.2023 whereby and whereunder the competent
authority has been pleased to dismiss the appeal of the
petitioner against the order of dismissal from service.
iii. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of
mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to grant
all consequential benefits including reinstatement in service
with entire back wages for the period of idleness and all
other consequential benefits.”
Brief Facts:
3. An advertisement bearing Advertisement No.
01 of 2017 was published on 16.09.2017 by the Bihar Police
Subordinate Service Commission for appointment against 1717
vacancies of Police Sub-Inspector in the Grade Pay of
Rs.4200/-. The petitioner being eligible in the terms of the
advertisement, filled up his online application form on
11.04.2017. A criminal case was pending against him relating to
Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 291 of 2015 and the
information regarding same has not been given in on-line
application form. The petitioner had replied that due to
inadvertence on the part of the cyber cafe, criminal case was not
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
3/27mentioned. Preliminary test was conducted on 11.03.2018 and
the result of the preliminary examination was published by the
Commission on 05.05.2018 in which the petitioner was found
successful. The Main examination was conducted on
22.07.2018. The result of main examination was declared on
06.08.2018 in which the petitioner was found successful.
Physical Test was conducted from 18.09.2018 to 29.09.2018.
The result of Physical Eligibility Test was declared on
09.03.2019 in which the petitioner became successful. The
petitioner was called for document verification. He was required
to fill up a form under Rule 656 and 673 of Bihar Police Manual
for character verification. In the prescribed Column No. 7, he
has correctly given the detailed information regarding civil or
criminal case by answering in affirmative and had disclosed that
Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 291 of 2015 dated
21.09.2015, is pending against him. Thereafter, vide order dated
02.06.2019, the petitioner was posted at Benipatti Police Station
in the District of Darbhanga. In respect of allegation that the
petitioner had not disclosed criminal case in the on-line
application form so filled by him, he was suspended on
14.04.2020 and was directed to submit his show cause within a
period of 7 days. The show cause reply filed by the petitioner
was found not convincing. A charge memo contained in Memo
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
4/27
No. 326 dated 28.10.2021 was issued to the petitioner. An
inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer who had submitted
his report vide Memo No. 3725 dated 17.11.2021 finding the
charges to be true. It has been recorded in the finding that the
petitioner had suppressed the information relating to pendency
of criminal case against him in the on line application form
filled at the time of its submission. A second show cause notice
was issued vide Memo No. 2815 dated 31.12.2021. The
petitioner filed his reply vide letter dated 01.02.2022 denying
the findings of the Inquiry Officer and requested the
Disciplinary Authority to make available certain documents so
as to file his final show cause reply. In the meantime, learned
Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 103 of 2019
acquitted the petitioner vide order and judgment dated
07.05.2022. The petitioner vide letter dated 11.05.2022
requested the Disciplinary Authority to absolve him from the
charges. The respondent Disciplinary Authority passed the order
dated 27.06.2022, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was
dismissed from service. The petitioner filed an Appeal before
the Appellate Authority which was rejected vide order dated
14.02.2023 contained in Memo No. 27 dated 20.02.2023.
Aggrieved by the dismissal order and the appellate order, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
5/27
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated 20.06.2022 contained in Memo No. 1742 by which he has
been dismissed from service allegedly on the ground that he has
suppressed the pendency of criminal case in his application
form in terms of the Advt. No. 01/2017. The petitioner has also
sought quashing of the order dated 14.02.2023 by which his
appeal against order of punishment was rejected. Learned
counsel further submitted that it is not in dispute that the
petitioner was falsely implicated in Samatipur Mufassil P.S.
Case No. 291/2015 dated 21.09.2015 registered for offense
under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which he
faced trial for offence under Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. In the F.I.R., the petitioner was
named along with his two brothers merely on the basis of
suspicion allegedly due to enmity between the informant and the
father of the petitioner. He further submitted that on
consideration of all evidence in a trial wherein a total of 11
witnesses including doctor and the I.O. were examined, the
petitioner has been acquitted. The Learned Trial Court has given
a finding that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the
accused persons. The order of acquittal dated 07.05.2022 can be
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
6/27
termed to be an honorary acquittal where no evidence was found
against the petitioner. Learned counsel informs that the
petitioner was 21 years of age at the time of filling up the
application form on 04.11.2017 and ought not be condemned for
life in view of the fact that he was falsely implicated in the
present case. The petitioner qualified in the preliminary, mains
and physical test and he was declared successful by the Bihar
Police Subordinate Service Commission. He had appeared for
character verification and disclosed the pendency of the
aforesaid case against him in requisite form. The disclosure was
made on 30.04.2019 and the authorities being satisfied by the
disclosure of the criminal case, the petitioner was appointed on
29.05.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at Benipatti
Police Station in the District of Darbhanga on 02.06.2019.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondents had found the
petitioner suitable for appointment having declared the correct
information. Learned counsel next submitted that apart from the
aforesaid case, there is no other criminal antecedent against the
petitioner. Learned counsel further informs that the inquiry
report dated 17.11.2021 merely finds the charges to be true by
recording a finding that the petitioner had suppressed
information relating to pendency of criminal case in the
application form. The Inquiry officer has not considered any
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
7/27
other fact as required by the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471. The order of acquittal was
recorded on 07.05.2022 and the same was communicated to the
Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 11.05.2022 requesting
them to absolve the petitioner from the charges. Despite the
same, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order on
20.06.2022 dismissing the petitioner. The Disciplinary
Authority ought to have considered that the acquittal of the
petitioner was honourary and found suitable for appointment to
the post because his character was otherwise not found to be
unsuitable for employment in police force having disclosed the
pendency of criminal case before his appointment. Petitioner
cannot be said to have suppressed material information for
getting employment in as much as the disclosure was made
before the appointment order was issued. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has not
considered that the petitioner was merely 21 years of age at the
time of submission of application form and may have erred due
to the immediate risk of loosing employment opportunity, but
the same will not constitute misconduct in view of the conduct
of the petitioner who at the time of filling of the Character
Verification Form has made disclosure of the criminal case
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
8/27
against him.
5. Learned counsel in above background
submitted that the issue framed by this Court vide order dated
03.12.2024 can only be answered in affirmative that the charge
don’t constitute misconduct in so far as the disclosure relating to
the criminal case which inadvertently could not be made in the
on line application form in light of the Advertisement No.
01/2017 and in support, he has place reliance to judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in Avtar Singh (Supra), Ravindra
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2024) 5 SCC
264 and Commissioner of Police and Others Vs Sandeep
Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 and seeks setting aside and quashing
of the order contained in Memo No. 1742 dated 20.06.2022 and
communicated vide Memo No. 1620 dated 27.06.2022 and the
appellate order dated 14.02.2023 and to reinstate the petitioner
in service with all consequential benefit.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents submitted that though the petitioner has
disclosed the criminal case at the time of character verification
after his selection, but at the very initial stage, while he had
filled up the online application form, he had not disclosed the
criminal case being Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 291 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
9/27
2015 dated 21.09.2015 pending against him and non-disclosure
of the criminal case will amount to misconduct to have been
committed by the petitioner.
7. This Court during the course of argument had
reminded the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State to
address in respect of the issue as framed vide order dated
03.12.2024, as to whether incorrect disclosure made in the
application form in light of the Advertisement No. 01 of 2017
dated 16.09.2017 will amount to misconduct.
8. In reply, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State has placed reliance on
paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit, which are
reproduced hereinafter:
“15. That from perusal of the Memo No.
821/D.G.P. (H.Q.), Bihar, Patna, dated 21.05.2019 in light
of Rule 673 of the Bihar Police Manual 1978, it transpires
that if chargesheet has/have been submitted against any of
the candidate, then the said candidate will not be eligible
for his appointment.
16. That thereafter Mithila Regional Order
No.294/2022, vide Memo No.1742/General Section, dated
20.06.2022 of Office of the I.G. of Police, Darbhanga
Region was issued under the signature of the I.G. of Police,
Darbhanga Region by which the petitioner was
removed/relieved from the Police Service using the power
given under Rule 668 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978.”
9. Learned counsel referring to Rule 673 of the
Bihar Police Manual, 1978 submitted that the same provides for
verification roll to be prepared in the prescribed Form P.M. 101
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
10/27
and submitted that literate persons like petitioner is expected to
fill up in the verification form and sign and answer himself. In
the present case, the petitioner has not made correct disclosure
in the online form and, as such, the same will amount to
misconduct. Learned counsel further referring to column no. 7
of Form P.M.101 informs this Court that the petitioner has given
incorrect information by not mentioning the criminal case
pending against him, however, he admits that in column no. 7.
The petitioner has given the reference of criminal case as
mentioned therein. Learned counsel further submitted that
allegation under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is
serious offense and non disclosure of the said F.I.R. being
Samastipur Mufassil P.S. case no.291 of 2015 in column no. 7
will amount to misconduct and removal of the petitioner from
service is justified in the eye of law.
10. Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission,
supporting the argument advanced on behalf of the State
submitted that the petitioner has not denied the fact that he has
not made any disclosure in the online form in respect of
criminal case or whether he is accused in any criminal case or
not as required in the declaration form, who was aspiring at the
relevant point of time to be inducted into disciplined service and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
11/27
the suppression will amount to misconduct. He clarified that the
suppression of vital information from the recruiting agency or
from the appointing authority and after getting knowledge of the
same, the petitioner has rightly been removed from the service.
Learned counsel further submitted that the case relied upon by
the petitioner is not relevant so far as the fact of the present case
is concerned.
11. Learned counsel in support has relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and
Others Vs. Methu Meda, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1 and has
relied on paragraph nos. 20 and 21 of the said judgment, learned
counsel submitted that the Apex Court, after considering several
decisions, has concluded that the petitioner who was aspiring to
join the police service, must be a person of utmost rectitude and
have impeccable character and integrity and in this background,
he submitted that the person like petitioner having a criminal
antecedent would not be fit in the category of disciplined force.
Paragraph nos. 20 and 21 of the aforesaid judgment are
reproduced hereinafter:
“20. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the
respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a
person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character
and integrity. A person having a criminal antecedents
would not be fit in this category. The employer is having
right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is
completely exonerated because even a possibility of his
taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
12/27the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has
entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the
Screening Committee and the decision of the Committee
would be final unless mala fide. In Pradeep Kumar [State
(UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 504 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] , this
Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in Mehar
Singh [State v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3
SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910] . The same view
has again been reiterated by this Court in Raj Kumar [State
v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S)
745] .
21. As discussed hereinabove, the law is
well-settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit
of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral
turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would
not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in
disciplined force. The employer is having a right to
consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by
the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the
offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient.
In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to
give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench
and the Division Bench of the High Court have not
considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the
orders [Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine
MP 10701] , [Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ Petition
No. 3897 of 2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP)] impugned.
Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court in Methu Meda v. Union of
India [Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ Petition No.
3897 of 2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP)] and the
Division Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda [Union of
India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10701] are not
sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove.”
12. Learned counsel further submitted that relying
on the aforesaid judgment, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
case of Ravi Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar vide order dated
11.10.2022 passed in CWJC No. 3805 of 2021, has not
interfered in any manner with the dismissal order in respect of
the petitioner of the said writ petition. Learned counsel has
relied on paragraph nos. 14, 16, 17 and 18 of the aforesaid
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
13/27
judgment.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: –
13. Heard the parties.
14. The moot question which arises for
determination is, as to whether, the petitioner who was aspiring
to join the police force was required to disclose the criminal
antecedent while filling up the application form and whether
such non-disclosure will disentitle him to continue in the police
force, who subsequently was declared successful and had given
the joining and worked thereafter? Secondly, in such
circumstances, whether this Court can interfere in any manner
with the dismissal order in respect of the petitioner?
15. The impeccable character and integrity is the
backbone of disciplined force and in this regard law has already
been declared by the Apex Court in the case of Methu Meda
(supra) and admitting the position regarding non-disclosure by
the petitioner, this Court takes into consideration the relevant
provision contained in Rule 673 of 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
14/27educational qualification in rule 663 the
questions on the roll shall be put to the
candidate by the reserve officer, or 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.”
16. The P.M. Form No. 101, requires an applicant
like the petitioner to disclose as to whether he has ever been
accused in a criminal or civil case or has ever been in prison
after being selected. Clause 7 of the Form reads as follows:
“7. Whether applicant has
ever been accused in a
criminal or civil case or has
ever been in prison. Give
details.”
17. The requirement of disclosure of implication in
the criminal case is apparent from plain reading of the Rule 7
of the requisite form. It is also apparent from bare perusal of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
15/27
the above quoted Rule 673(c) that if disclosure/statement made
in the verification form is found to be false or character
reported to be bad, then the consequence of removal from the
Force is explicit under the rules. Therefore, the stand of the
petitioner that he had not disclosed his implication in the
criminal case on account of his acquittal prior to initiation of
the process of selection in which he applied, is clearly
unsustainable. Clause 7 of P.M. Form no.101 does not require
disclosure of only pending criminal case, but requires
disclosure of the fact whether applicant “has ever been”
accused in a criminal or civil case. The Rule is unambiguous in
its requirement and there is no basis for any applicant to
understand or arrive at an opinion that if accusation in a
criminal case has led to his acquittal, then the same is not
required to be disclosed.
18. Moreover, I find it apt to observe that the petitioner
was disentitled for enlistment for not making a truthful
statement regarding his antecedents; this Court would observe
that there was sufficient material to conclude that he was a man
of bad character at the first instant for the purposes of Rule
673(c) of the Manual. However when I proceeded to analyze the
facts and circumstances in view of the observation made in
paragraph no. 38.1 and 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (supra), wherein, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
16/27
has been held that the information given to the employer by a
candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a
criminal case, whether, before or after entering into service must
be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of
the required information and if acquittal has already been
recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of
heinous/ serious nature on technical grounds and it is not a case
of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given,
the employer may consider all relevant facts and available as to
antecedents, and may take appropriate decisions as to the
continuance of the employee.
19. Following the law laid down in Avtar Singh
(Supra), the Apex Court in paragraph nos. 22, 24 and 25 in the
case of Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in, (2024) 5
SCC 264, reiterated the principles laid down in Paragraph Nos.
34 to 38 in Avtar Singh (supra) and has observed, inter alia, is
as follows:
22. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v.
Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC
(L&S) 425] . Paras 34, 35, 36 and 38, which sets
out the conclusions, are extracted hereinbelow :
(SCC pp. 506-508)
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
17/27be based upon objective criteria on due
consideration of all relevant aspects.
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. We have noticed various decisions and
tried to explain and reconcile them as far as
possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a
candidate as to conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service
must be true and there should be no
suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. 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.
38.3. The employer shall take into
consideration the Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
18/27Orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. 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 recourses appropriate to the
case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in 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.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded
in case which is not trivial in nature,
employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been
recorded in a case involving moral turpitude
or offence of heinous/serious nature, on
technical ground and it is not a case of clean
acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has
been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents,
and may take appropriate decision as to the
continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the
right to consider antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. 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.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of
fact with respect to multiple pending cases
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
19/27such false information by itself will assume
significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling candidature or
terminating services as appointment of a
person against whom multiple criminal
cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not
known to the candidate at the time of filling
the form, still it may have adverse impact
and the appointing authority would take
decision after considering the seriousness of
the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in
service,
holding departmental enquiry would be
necessary before passing order of
termination/removal or dismissal on the
ground of suppression or submitting false
information in verification form.
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.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of
suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge
of the fact must be attributable to him.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC
471, also noticed the judgment in Commr. of Police
v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 . In Sandeep
Kumar (supra), this Court set out the story of the
character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo’s novel
Les Miserables, where the character was branded as
a thief for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry
family. It also discussed the classic judgment of
Lord Denning in Morris v. Crown Office and
concluded as follows :-
“10. … In our opinion, we should
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
20/27display the same wisdom as
displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth
often commits indiscretions, which
are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application
form the respondent did not mention
that he was involved in a criminal
case under Sections 325/34IPC.
Probably he did not mention this out
of fear that if he did so he would
automatically be disqualified. At any
event, it was not such a serious
offence like murder, dacoity or rape,
and hence a more lenient view should
be taken in the matter.”
25. Thereafter, in Avtar Singh (supra) dealing with
Sandeep Kumar (supra), this Court observed as
under :
“24. … This Court has observed that
suppression related to a case when
the age of Sandeep Kumar was about
20 years. He was young and at such
age people often commit
indiscretions and such indiscretions
may often be condoned. The modern
approach should be to reform a
person instead of branding him a
criminal all his life. In Morris v.
Crown Office [Morris v. Crown
Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2
WLR 792 (CA)] , the observations
made were that young people are no
ordinary criminals. There is no
violence, dishonesty or vice in them.
They were trying to preserve the
Welsh language. Though they have
done wrong but we must show mercy
on them and they were permitted to
go back to their studies, to their
parents and continue the good
course.”
20. The Apex Court faced with the similar facts and
circumstances of the case as that of the facts of the present case
has taken notice in entirety and has observed in para 5 in case
of Commr. of Police v. Dhaval Singh, reported in, (1999) 1
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
21/27
SCC 246, which is reproduced hereinafter :-
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 on 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. (Emphasis supplied)
21. Following the observation and law laid down
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
22/27
by the Apex Court, the petitioner, who has claimed himself to be
aged about 21 years at the time of submission of on line
application form may have committed indiscretion, but
indiscretion if not condoned will only lead to brand him as
criminal for the rest of his life. The Apex Court again reiterated
the said principle in the case of Commissioner of Police and
Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644
wherein also, it has been held that “modern approach should be
to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his
life”, I find it gainful to reproduce Paragraph Nos. 2 to 12 of the
said judgment.
“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”.
3. It is alleged that this is a false statement
made by the respondent because he and some of his
family members were involved in a criminal case
being FIR No. 362 under Sections 325/34 IPC. This
case was admittedly compromised on 18-1-1998 and
the respondent and his family members were
acquitted on 18-1-1998.
4. In response to the advertisement issued in
January 1999 for filling up of certain posts of Head
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
23/27
Constables (Ministerial), the respondent applied on
24-2-1999 but did not mention in his application
form that he was involved in the aforesaid criminal
case. The respondent qualified in all the tests for
selection to the post of temporary Head Constable
(Ministerial). On 3-4-2001 he filled the attestation
form wherein for the first time he disclosed that he
had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant
which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and
he had been acquitted.
5. On 2-8-2001 a show-cause notice was
issued to him asking the respondent to show cause
why his candidature for the post should not be
cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his
involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and had
made a wrong statement in his application form.
The respondent submitted his reply on 17-8-2001
and an additional reply but the authorities were not
satisfied with the same and on 29-5-2003 cancelled
his candidature.
6. The respondent filed a petition before the
Central Administrative Tribunal which was
dismissed on 13-2-2004. Against that order the
respondent filed a writ petition which has been
allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this
appeal.
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.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
24/27
whole life. The modern approach should be to
reform a person instead of branding him as a
criminal all his life.
10. We may also here refer to the case of
Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his
book Due Process of Law. It appears that some
students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the
Welsh language and they were upset because the
radio programmes were being broadcast in the
English language and not in Welsh. They came up to
London and invaded the High Court. They were
found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to
prison for three months by the High Court Judge.
They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals.
Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed:
“I come now to Mr Watkin Powell’s third
point. He says that the sentences were
excessive. I do not think they were excessive,
at the time they were given and in the
circumstances then existing. Here was a
deliberate interference with the course of
justice in a case which was no concern of
theirs. It was necessary for the Judge to
show–and to show to all students
everywhere–that this kind of thing cannot
be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if
they please, for the causes in which they
believe. Let them make their protests as they
will. But they must do it by lawful means and
not by unlawful. If they strike at the course
of justice in this land–and I speak both for
England and Wales–they strike at the roots
of society itself, and they bring down that
which protects them. It is only by the
maintenance of law and order that they are
privileged to be students and to study and
live in peace. So let them support the law
and not strike it down.
But now what is to be done? The law has
been vindicated by the sentences which the
Judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He
has shown that law and order must be
maintained, and will be maintained. But on
this appeal, things are changed. These
students here no longer defy the law. They
have appealed to this Court and shown
respect for it. They have already served a
week in prison. I do not think it necessary to
keep them inside it any longer. These young
people are no ordinary criminals. There is
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
25/27no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On
the contrary, there was much that we should
applaud. They wish to do all they can to
preserve the Welsh language. Well may they
be proud of it. It is the language of the bards
–of the poets and the singers–more
melodious by far than our rough English
tongue. On high authority, it should be equal
in Wales with English. They have done
wrong–very wrong–in going to the extreme
they did. But, that having been shown, I
think we can, and should, show mercy on
them. We should permit them to go back to
their studies, to their parents and continue
the good course which they have so wrongly
disturbed.” (Vide Morris v. Crown Office
[(1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2 WLR 792 :
(1970) 3 All ER 1079 (CA)] , QB at p. 125C-
H.)
In our opinion, we should display the same
wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often
commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the
respondent did not mention that he was involved in
a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC.
Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if
he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At
any event, it was not such a serious offence like
murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient
view should be taken in the matter.
22. In so far as the facts of the present case is
concerned, the disciplinary authority has dismissed the
petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure of criminal case in
the application form without considering that there was
omission on the part of the petitioner in application form but
had voluntarily declared at the time of filling of PM Form
No.101. In this regard, the Apex Court in Avtar Singh (Supra),
dealing with Sandeep Kumar (Supra), in paragraph no. 24, has
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
26/27
made it clear that the suppression related to a case when the age
of the applicant was about 20 years, in the present case 21 years
and at such age, people often commit indiscretion and such
indiscretion may often be condoned. The modern approach
should be to reform a person instead of branding him as
criminal for the rest of his life. I find that in light of the above
law laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph no. 24 in Avtar
Singh (Supra), the dismissal of the petitioner on the basis of
non-disclosure in online application form before he was taken
into service could only be said that the petitioner may have
erred at the time of submission of online application form to
avoid the immediate risk of losing employment opportunity, the
petitioner became successful for being selected and before
joining the service, he has given correct information at the time
of filling of character verification form.
23. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the
impugned order contained in Memo No. 1742 dated 20.06.2022
and communicated vide Memo No. 1620 dated 27.06.2022 and
the appellate order dated 14.02.2023 require interference
considering the admitted position regarding suitability of the
petitioner’s candidature by the appointing authority for
appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6827 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
27/27
Police is based on his eligibility and informations contained in
Rule 673(c) of the Police Manual.
24. In view of the discussions and observations
made hereinabove in the facts and circumstances of the case and
in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
aforementioned judgments, the order contained in Memo No.
1742 dated 20.06.2022 and communicated vide Memo No. 1620
dated 27.06.2022 and the appellate order dated 14.02.2023 are
hereby set aside and quashed.
25. The authorities are directed to take corrective
measures in accordance with law.
26. The writ petition stands allowed.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 20.12.2024 Uploading Date 20.01.2025 Transmission Date NA