ORDER

The petitioner had applied for the post of Steno, Police Sub-Inspector on 02nd May 2018, on the basis of advertisement no. 01/2018 issued by the Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Service Commission. On or about 22nd September 2018, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner and others in the Dhobahan outpost on the basis of which a criminal case being Case No. 311/2018 under Sections 341/223/379/324/504/506/34 of the IPC was registered. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner was selected for service on the post of Steno Sub-Inspector of Police. Subsequently, he was asked to submit a verification form wherein, he was specifically asked as to whether:—

(a) he was arrested in any case or not;

(b) any case was instituted against him or not;

(c) he was kept under police custody or not;

(d) he was under the vigilance of police or not;

(e) he was sentenced to pay fine or not;

(f) he was convicted in a criminal case or not.

2. The petitioner filled up his verification form, giving a reply to the above-mentioned questions in negative. Subsequently, during verification by the police department, the authority came to know that a police case was lodged against the petitioner on 22nd September 2018 and the petitioner suppressed the said information and also gave wrong answer to the said question, in spite of his having knowledge about the pendency of the said case. So, the appointment letter was not issued in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner immediately approached this Court by filling CWJC No. 1019 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench vide an order dated 10th December 2021. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:—

“Petitioner’s grievance is only for issuance of direction to the concerned respondent to issue order of appointment and accept duty report to the post of Steno Assistant Sub Inspector. In this regard he has cited the letter no. 1156/vk;ksx dated 19.09.2019 (Annexure ‘6’) issued by the Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission followed by representation dated 30.09.2020.

The concerned respondent is hereby directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and accept the duty report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

In the event of any hurdle in accepting duty report to the petitioner, necessary speaking order shall be passed as to why petitioner’s duty report cannot be accepted. Such a speaking order shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks and be communicated to the petitioner. (SIC)”

3. The authority duly considered the representation of the petitioner and his representation was rejected by the impugned order dated 14th January 2022. Paragraphs no. 04 to 08 of the said order are relevant and are quoted below:—

^^4- pfj= lR;kiu Ái= ÁkIr gksus ds mijkUr buls lacafèkr vfHkys[kksa dh tkapksijkUr ik;k x;k fd Jh dqekj }kjk lefiZr gLrk{kfjr iqfyl lR;kiu Ái= ds Øekad 1 esa ftlesa vH;FkhZ ds fo:}@fnokuh@QkStnkjh ,oa flfoy ekeys esa vfHk;qDr jgus vFkok dHkh dkjkokl Hkqxrus dk fooj.k vH;FkhZ }kjk gh Hkjk tkuk ;k buds }kjk ugha Hkjk x;k gSA ijUrq pfj= lR;kiu fjiksVZ esa buds fo:} mijksDr of.kZr x;kA ;kek dk.M ntZ ik;kA
5- buds }kjk pfj= lR;kiu Ái= esa oLrqfLFkfr dks Nqikrs gq, iqjh rjg xyr lwpuk dh xbZ gSA ftlds fy, ;g ÁFke n`"V;k :i esa mÙkjnk;h gSA mDr fLFkfr esa budh fu;qfDr ugha dh x;hA
6- lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx fcgkj ljdkj ds i=kad 6831 fnukad 23-07-2020 }kjk jkT;kèkhu lsokvksa@laoxksZ esa fu;qfDr gsrq lacafèkr vk;ksx ls vuq'kaflr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fo:} vkijkfèkd dk;Zokgh esa nks"kfl} gksus@ÁfØ;kèkhu jgus dh fLFkfr esa fu;qfDr djus gsrq fn'kk funsZ'k tkjh fd;k x;k gSA mDr funs'k ds dafMdk 4 ds mi&dafMdk 38-1 esa mYys[k gS fd

"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."

7- fcgkj iqfyl gLrd] 1978 ds fu;e 673 esa mYys[k gS