Madhuresh Prasad, J.—By the instant writ application, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.03.2020, whereby and whereunder the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra (`DIG', in short) has held the petitioner to be ineligible for enlistment as a Sub-Inspector in the Bihar Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the Force'). The order has been passed under Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as `the Manual').

2. The relevant factual background is that the petitioner was an applicant pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2017 published inviting applications from desirous candidates for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner was recommended for appointment, testimonials were verified and he was medically examined and found fit in all respects for appointment as Sub- Inspector.

3. Rule 673 of the Manual provides for verification roll to be prepared on the prescribed form P.M.101. Literate persons like the instant petitioner are expected to fill in the verification form and sign the answers themselves. Thereafter the same is to be verified from the home district of every candidate for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector, Reserve Sub-Inspector and Constable or any ministerial post in the Bihar Police. After 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 of Police is required to initial this entry, whereafter the verification roll is to be entered in the service-book and filed. On the other hand, if the character of the man is reported to be bad or his declarations/statements made in the verification roll to be false, he is required to be removed from the Force.

4. In the instant case, during verification of the petitioner's candidature it was discovered that the petitioner was earlier an accused in Rivilganj P.S. Case No.12/2010 dated 23.01.2010, for alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had been acquitted in the said case on the basis of a compromise by order dated 25.07.2016 in the trial, bearing Tr. No.774 of 2016, arising out of the said Rivilganj P.S case.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner had not disclosed his implication in Rivilganj P.S. Case No.12/2010 while filling up the verification roll. It is in this background that the impugned order has been issued by the DIG holding the petitioner to be ineligible for enlistment/appointment in the Force because the petitioner was named accused in the said case, wherein he was chargesheeted and cognizance had been taken by the court. The petitioner was acquitted based on a compromise between the parties and resultant lack of evidence. The DIG was thus of the opinion that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, it cannot be treated as a case of honourable acquittal and therefore, the petitioner was ineligible in terms of Rule 673(c) of the Manual.

6. The petitioner's counsel has submitted that at the time of filling up the application for appointment or the verification roll, the petitioner had already been acquitted in Rivilganj P.S. Case No.12/2010. He therefore did not consider his implication in the said P.S. case to be of any significance so as to require mentioning of this fact in the verification form. He submits that since he was acquitted on 25.07.2016, non-mentioning of his implication in the criminal case in the process of selection initiated much later by advertisement dated 16.09.2017, is of no consequence.

7. It is also submitted by the petitioner's counsel that there was no basis for the DIG to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner's acquittal was not an honourable acquittal. It is further submitted that whether acquittal of the petitioner was honourable or not, is not a relevant consideration for the purposes of Rule 673(c) of the Manual. Petitioner's counsel has thus submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and fit