Jitendra Kumar Akela vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 25-08-2026 Heard Mr. Vinay Ranjan, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Krishna, learned Advocate for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 18.06.2026 issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police, Nalanda; whereby and whereunder the application for character certificate of the petitioner came to be rejected.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner, adverting to the facts narrated in the writ petition, has submitted that the application of the petitioner came to be rejected only on the ground that earlier in the year 2019, the petitioner was caught hold of while he was in intoxicated position, leading to institution of Islampur P.S. Case No. 383 of 2019, for the offenses punishable under Section 37(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. In the aforesaid case, since there was a provision for deposit of the fine, taking least resistance in the matter, the petitioner has accepted the accusation and deposited a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and accordingly the Court of learned Special Judge, Excise Court, Hilsa, Nalanda has passed the order on 22.07.2026.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner, narrating the entire facts, has further argued before this Court that only on account of the reason of having been found in intoxicated position, sometime in the year 2019, the application for character certificate of the petitioner has been rejected mechanically. It is the specific case of the petitioner that except the aforesaid incident, he has never been found indulge in any incriminating activities, nor there has ever been any adverse report regarding his conduct. Non-issuance of the character certificate in favour of the petitioner would cause irreparable loss, besides civil as well as evil consequences and would certainly deprive him to be considered for appointment. The petitioner recently applied for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff in Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited, wherein the petitioner was selected and has provisionally been impaneled. However, in absence of the character certificate, the petitioner is not in a position to get his appointment.

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submitted that since the petitioner was found accused in connection with Islampur P.S. Case No. 383 of 2019, wherein the petitioner has admitted his guilt, based upon which he has also deposited the fine, and as such, the report of the SHO cannot be faulted with, which is the very basis of rejection of his application for character certificate by the Superintendent of Police.

This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate for the rival parties and taking note of the fact, especially that long back in the year 2019, the petitioner was found in intoxicated position, leading to institution of Islampur P.S. Case No. 383 of 2019, which has been culminated after deposit of the fine. Besides, the aforenoted case, the petitioner has absolutely fair antecedent and there is no other adverse report.

Undisputedly, the verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent. The whole idea of verification of character and antecedent is that the person is suitable for the post, in question, is appointed. It is truly, an important criteria to be fulfilled before appointment is made. A candidate should not have the antecedent of such a nature, which may adjudged him unsuitable for the post. What is necessary, is the information regarding conduct of a person. It is open to the employer to adjudge antecedent of an incumbent, but ultimately action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. We must keep in mind that chance of reformation must be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases; non consideration of their claim for consideration for appointment on account of imposition of fine and conviction in trivial nature of cases, in any circumstances would be antithesis to constitutional goal and violates Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The authority empowered to issue character certificate in cases of trivial nature or imposition of fine, may at best, mention the same in the certificate, but an outright rejection in issuing the character certificate in favour of a candidate not only arbitrary but have within its fold far reaching consequences affecting irreversibly.

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner was found in intoxicated position, leading to lodging of FIR in the year 2019 and he was imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; and since then, there is no adverse report against him. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that a fresh consideration is required in the case of the petitioner in the light of the discussions made hereinabove. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 18.07.2026 issued under the signature of S.P., Nalanda is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to the S.P., Nalanda for fresh consideration, who shall be at liberty to call for a fresh report from the concerned SHO upon filing of the fresh application for character certificate by the petitioner within two weeks alongwith the order of this Court.

It is made clear that if there would not be any other impediment, save and except the implication of the petitioner in the earlier case, necessary character certificate should be issued in his favour.

The entire exercise must be completed preferably within a period of six weeks, from today.

The writ petition stands disposed off.