IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
CWJC No.6827 of 2023
(20.1.2025)
Sonu Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – Dismissal from Service – petitioner, appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police, dismissed subsequently on the ground of not disclosing about pendency of criminal case against him, in his on-line application form – The requirement of disclosure of implication in the criminal case is apparent from Rule 7 of the requisite form – From Rule 673(3) of the Bihar Police Manual, it is also apparent that if disclosure/statement made in the verification is found to be false or character reported to be bad, then the consequence of removal from the Force is explicit under the rules – The petitioner was disentitled for enlistment for not making a truthful statement regarding his antecedents – There was sufficient material to conclude that he was a man of bad character at the first instance for the purposes of Rule 673© of the Manual – However, in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, 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 application form – The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as criminal for rest of his life – Impugned orders set aside – Writ petition allowed. (Paras 17, 22 & 23)
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471; Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 5 SCC 264; Commissioner of Police Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644; Union of India Vs. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1; Ravi Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2022 (6) BLJ 441 : CWJC No. 3805 of 2021, dated 11.10.2022; Commr. of Police Vs. Dhaval Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246 – Relied.
Purnendu Singh, J.—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 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 mentioned. 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 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
Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar
Ravi Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2022 (6) BLJ 441 : CWJC No. 3805 of 2021
The court emphasizes that minor omissions in self-disclosure during recruitment can be reconsidered if disclosed later, balancing integrity with the potential for rehabilitation.
Non-disclosure of a past minor criminal case does not automatically justify termination of employment; each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances.
Non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in employment applications must be evaluated against the nature of the charges and the context of acquittal, impacting the candidate's suitability for servic....
The concealment of a pending criminal case during the employment application process can justify termination of services, as integrity and character are critical for positions within the judicial sys....
The suppression of material facts during application must be judged contextually; non-disclosure alone does not automatically disqualify a candidate, especially if they later disclose relevant inform....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.