AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 27-08-2026 Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate along with Mrs. Ritika Rani, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Government Pleader No. 4 for the State.
The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order as contained in Memo No. 1337 dated 17.08.2019, issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police (Administration), Magadh Zone, Gaya, by which the petitioner has been communicated the decision of Inspector General of Police, Magadh Division, Gaya, in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Police Sub-Inspector against Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 in the light of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8638 of 2011, arising out of LPA No. 818 of 2014, considering the Rule 673 of the Bihar Police Manual.
The petitioner also sought a direction upon the concerned respondents to take a decision on his representation, in view of the changed circumstances of his having been acquitted vide judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 263 of 2019 arising out of Delha P.S. Case No. 115 of 2018 and accordingly direct for his selection for the post of Police Sub-Inspector against the Advertisement No. 1 of 2017.
The brief facts as culled out from the materials available on record lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, upon being found eligible for appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, duly submitted his application under EBC category against Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 issued under the signature of Secretary, Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission, Bihar, Patna. The minimum qualification for appointment was prescribed graduation from a recognized University on or before 01.07.2017. The petitioner was served with the admit card for appearing in the physical test held on 11.03.2018, wherein the petitioner was declared successful. Upon having qualified the physical test examination, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the mains examination on 22.07.2018, and he was declared successful in the said examination also. The petitioner was also called upon to appear in physical evaluation test held on 18.09.2018 and declared qualified.
During interregnum, the petitioner was made accused in Delha P.S. Case No. 115 of 2018, which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 263 of 2019. In course of verification of the “Character Verification Form”, the authorities found that one Golu Kumar had lodged an FIR on 03.05.2018 against the petitioner along with other accused persons and upon investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on 30.09.2018. The aforesaid incidence of lodging of the FIR has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the character verification form, which led to issuance of office order on the direction of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, contained in Memo No. 1337 dated 17.08.2019, issued under the signature of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration), Magadh Range, Gaya, informing the petitioner that on account of concealment of criminal antecedent in the Character Verification Form, especially in Clause 7 and 8, the case of the petitioner is not found fit for appointment; accordingly, in the light of Rule 673 of Bihar Police Manual, 1978, as also in terms with the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8638 of 2011 arising out of LPA No. 818 of 2014, the candidature of the petitioner stood rejected.
Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that before issuance of such order affecting the right and entitlement of the petitioner, he has never been served with any show-cause notice, seeking explanation as to whether such suppression was deliberate or caused in inadvertence. The decision which has far-reaching consequences, in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, must withstand the scrutiny of fairness and principle of natural justice. Such severest punishment without following the procedure is fit to be quashed, as it violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Referring to the decisions rendered in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., [(2016) 8 SCC 471], it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after noticing catena of decisions, summarized and spelt a guidelines required to be followed by the authorities concerned in a case of suppression of criminal antecedents. The Court in clear terms ruled that in a case of trivial 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.
Placing reliance upon a decision rendered in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of UP & Ors., [(2024) 5 SCC 264], as also a bench decision of this Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 12746 of 2021, it is urged that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is wholly unsustainable. Had the petitioner been given an opportunity, he would have certainly clarified the position. Moreover, in the case at hand, the petitioner was put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 263 of 2019. However, the prosecution has miserably failed in proving all the charges levelled and framed against the petitioner and other accused persons, and accordingly, vide judgment dated 20.01.2021, the petitioner and other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya. The copy of such decision has been placed on record as Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
Taking this Court through the afore noted decision passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner further argued that now the impediment, which was coming in the way of the petitioner for consideration of his claim for appointment, is no more survived. Thus in his submission, the concerned authority must consider the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in the light of the judgment referred hereinabove, keeping in mind that a chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases.
Per contra, Mr. Manish kumar, learned gp-4, appearing on behalf of the state, dispelling the aforesaid contentions submitted with all his vehemence that in the Character Verification Form, the petitioner has knowingly suppressed his criminal antecedent, regarding pendency of criminal case bearing Delha P.S. Case No. 115 of 2018, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Character Verification Form was duly filled up by the petitioner on 29.04.2019, much after the institution of the aforementioned criminal case and submission of the Final Form/Report, wherein the case has been found true against the petitioner.
Referring to Rule 673 of Bihar Police Manual, 1978, it is submitted that any suppression or misrepresentation of facts during the recruitment process, particularly in matters related to criminal antecedent, is considered to be a grave misconduct and 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 deliberate concealment of material facts, as detailed earlier, clearly contravenes this rule. Referring to the decision of Avtar Singh (supra), learned Advocate for the State further 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.
Heavy reliance has been placed on a decision rendered in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya [(2021) 10 SCC 136]. Having carefully read the relevant paragraphs of the aforenoted decision, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Advocate for the State further 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 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 been involved in a criminal case.
Further reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Bhupendra Yadav, [(2024) 18 SCC 628], as also the decision in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar, (2026) 0 INSC 49. Referring to the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decisions, he further submits that proper and complete disclosure in applications for government employment is not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity and public trust. When an applicant withholds information about criminal antecedents, it undermines this process by depriving the appointing authority of the opportunity to make a fully informed assessment of suitability.
While concluding learned Advocate for the State further argued that the Court while considering these matters, ought to keep in mind that sympathy in no circumstances can supplant the law.
This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the rival parties and also perused the materials available on record. Before considering the facts of the present case, it would be pertinent to take notice of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court time to time clarifying the position of law while adjudicating such issues.
So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., [(2013) 9 SCC 363], ruled that the question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. A case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude, but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer, if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial, or the person concerned stood acquitted or discharged.
It is significant to note the settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” [Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1]. The need of character verification was duly underscored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Sec. Home and Others [(2012) 8 SCC 748] by holding 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 antecedents, the appointing authority if finds it not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.”
In the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while laying down the guidelines required to be considered while exercising the power for canceling the candidature or discharging an employee from service, in paragraph no. 32, has categorically ruled that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further emphasized that, even in a criminal case, where the incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services. 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. Noticing various decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court painstakingly reconcile them and summarized the conclusion in paragraph no. 38, which reads as follows:-
“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 orders/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 such 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.”
A bare reading of the above referred decisions, it is imperative that a person, who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but adversely 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.
In the case of Jainendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while summarizing the principles to be considered in a case where the appointment is obtained by misrepresentation and/or suppression of facts by candidates, inter alia, held that the standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted. The Court further ruled that an employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
In the case of Anil Kanwariya (supra), the Court in no uncertain terms spelt out 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 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 been involved in a criminal case.
It would also be pertinent to take note of Rule 673 of Bihar Police Manual, which in sum and substance clearly mandates that the impeccable character and integrity is sine qua non to be inducted in a disciplined force. For proper appreciation, Rule 673 of the Bihar Police Manual is quoted herein below.
"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, 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."
Similar prescription has also been contemplated under Rule 668 of the Bihar Police Manual, which mandates character verification with a clear stipulation that in case any false declaration regarding criminal antecedents is made, the same shall render a candidate ineligible for appointment. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two provisions, this Court has no hesitation to reach the conclusion that any suppression or misrepresentation of facts during the recruitment process, particularly in matters related to criminal antecedents, is considered as a grave misconduct, and if a candidate fails to maintain a higher standard of credibility and honesty during the recruitment process, cannot be considered suitable for service in the police force.
In the light of the afore-referred legal position, now this Court takes up the case of the petitioner. Facts are admitted to the extent that the petitioner had applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector, and he has been declared successful in preliminary as well as mains examination and physical test. However, at the time of submission of Character Verification Form, in answer to Column 7 and 8 of such verification form, which put a question to a candidate that as to whether the candidate has ever been made accused in criminal or civil cases, or as to whether the same is pending or not, the petitioner clearly expressed “No” in his own words.
The aforestated Character Verification Form was duly filled up by the petitioner and he had put his signature in presence of the Superintendent of Police. Upon submission of the character verification form, the enquiry was conducted and it has been found that the petitioner was made accused in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 115 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, after investigation, found the case to be true against the petitioner and accordingly charge-sheet has been submitted on 30.09.2018 itself. Subsequent thereto, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and accordingly Sessions Trial No. 263 of 2019 was proceeded; which, however, culminated into acquittal of the petitioner.
On a reading of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 20.01.2021, there is no iota of confusion that the petitioner along with other accused persons were acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt. Hence, not even an honourable acquittal.
There is one another aspect of the matter which need not be brushed aside so lightly that the impugned order cancelling the candidature of the petitioner came to be passed on 17.08.2019 in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8638 of 2011, arising out of LPA No. 818 of 2014, considering Rule 673 of Bihar Police Manual, but the same has never been changed until the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by the Court of learned Sessions Judge on 20.01.2021. The belated challenge to the impugned order has been made on account of the subsequent development, when the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges. Upon having been acquitted, for the first time, the petitioner submitted his representation on 07.07.2021 with a request to reconsider his case in view of the subsequent development of acquittal and thereupon, the present writ petition came to be filed challenging the very impugned order of cancellation of candidature of the petitioner.
During the interregnum period, at no point of time, the petitioner has either approached the authority or the Court assailing the order on the ground that it suffers from vice of arbitrariness and/or passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, after getting the order of acquittal, all these grounds have been taken before this Court. So far the reliance placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Avtar Singh (supra) and Ravindra Kumar (supra) are concerned, undoubtedly the Court ruled that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in appropriate cases. 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. Though the employer is given discretion to condone the omission, if he comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent. However, such power has to be exercised with circumspection and it depends upon the facts of each and every cases.
The employer, in fact, while exercising such power has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. The Court has emphasized that the standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted. This Court is tempted to recapitulate the relevant paragraphs of Jainendra Singh (supra), where the Court has spelt as follows:-
14.In Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar [(1996) 11 SCC 605 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 492] this Court held:
“3.… It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.”
(emphasis added)
So far the reliance over the decision of the Umesh Kumar Chaudhary (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case were different from the present, as in the said case, the petitioner, who was an aspirant for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, has submitted his application in response to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2017, wherein the petitioner of the said case has not disclosed his criminal antecedent and the pendency of a criminal case. However, in course of verification, the petitioner categorically disclosed the factum of pendency of criminal case, which later on resulted into acquittal of the petitioner. Hence, the Court after setting aside the impugned order, directed the authorities to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner neither in view of the observations made therein. However, in the case at hand, the petitioner has neither disclosed the fact of pendency of the criminal case at the time of filling up of character verification form nor upon rejection of his candidature, he approached the authorities, clarifying the position regarding non disclosure of antecedent. Thus, the case of suppression of material facts regarding pendency of the criminal case cannot be ruled out, which in the considered opinion of this Court, rendered the petitioner ineligible or unfit for government service. At the cost of repetition, this Court further takes note of the relevant prescription of the Bihar Police Manual, which clearly mandates that a candidate is obliged to offer a declaration regarding his criminal antecedent. In case of any false declaration regarding criminal antecedent, the same shall render a candidate ineligible for appointment.
The date on which the petitioner has submitted Character Verification Form, admittedly the petitioner was facing accusation and the investigation in the case in relation to Delha P.S. Case No. 115 of 2019 was active, which upon completion of the investigation resulted into submission of the charge sheet. However, this fact has not been disclosed despite the clear mandate and the question put in the Character Verification Form. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of the facts cannot accrue to his benefit.
Upon consideration of the afore-noted facts, in the light of the above referred legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from no perversity, and as such, does not require any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans any merit, fit to be dismissed.