Patna High Court
Babalu Kumar @ Babalu Bind vs The State Of Bihar on 5 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.382 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11003 of 2022
======================================================
Babalu Kumar @ Babalu Bind Son of Lalan Prasad Resident of Village-
Kadirganj, P.O.- Bhadokhara, P.s.- Dariagaon, District- Rohtas, Pin-
821115.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary (now Additional Chief
Secretary), Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police-cum- I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The D.I.G. of Police, Tirhut Range (Now I.G. of Police, Tirhut Zone),
Muzaffarpur.
4. The S.S.P., of Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
==============================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mayanand Jha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG -3.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG -3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-02-2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant has challenged the judgment of
the learned Single Judge passed on 15.03.2024 in
CWJC No. 11003 of 2022 refusing to interfere with
the dismissal of the appellant for having furnished
wrong information in the character verification form
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
regarding his involvement in any criminal case.
3. The appellant was selected by the Central
Selection Board in the year 2014 for the post of
Constable, on which post, he joined on 01.08.2015.
After about one and half months, the appellant was
asked to fill-up a character verification form in which,
amongst various other enquiries, it was asked of the
appointees whether they had been made accused in
any criminal or civil case or had gone to jail, to which
the appellant had replied in negative. However, the
aforenoted character verification form of the
appellant was sent to his home district i.e. Rohtas,
where it was discovered that he was, at the time of
his selection, made an accused in Dariagaon P.S.
Case No. 795/2011 dated 06.09.2011 under
Sections 341, 379, 323 and 34 of the IPC.
4. Based on the aforenoted discovery of fact about
the involvement of the appellant in a criminal case
and his act of suppressing of the aforenoted fact, the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
terminated his service without any show-cause notice
to him.
5. The appellant claims to have been acquitted in
the aforenoted case by the District & Sessions Judge,
Rohtas in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2016.
6. After his acquittal, the appellant made a request
to the SSP, Muzaffarpur to reinstate him in service
but when the same was not allowed, he preferred a
writ petition vide CWJC No. 21132 of 2018, which
was allowed to the extent that he was reinstated in
service and the department was directed to proceed
against him departmentally.
7. A departmental proceeding thus was instituted
against him in which he was found guilty of
suppressing a vital fact and was again dismissed
from service.
8. Against the aforenoted dismissal order, the
appellant came before this Court vide CWJC No. 6636
of 2022 when he was asked to challenge the
dismissal order before the Appellate Authority.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
9. The appeal preferred by the appellant before
the Appellate Authority / Inspector General of Police,
Muzaffarpur Zone was also dismissed.
10. Both the orders were challenged before this
Court vide CWJC No. 11003 of 2022, which too was
dismissed, holding that there was no deficiency
detected in the departmental proceeding and that a
person employed in police service is required to be
disciplined and not make any false statement about
his antecedents.
11. Hence, this appeal.
12. The challenge is primarily based on the ground
that the appellant misunderstood the question and
had answered in the negative because he was never
arrested. The question, however in the verification
form was very clear as to whether he was ever
involved in any civil or criminal litigation or he had
gone to jail.
13. The contention of the appellant is that he is only
semi-literate and did not understand the real import
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
of the question. The other ground raised on behalf of
the appellant is that ultimately, he was acquitted in
appeal and that the offences for which he was
charged was not of any serious nature; rather the
case arose out of a family feud and village politics.
14. The last of the contentions raised on behalf of
the appellant was that neither the disciplinary
authority nor the appellate authority or the learned
Single Judge took into account the parameters to be
applied while evaluating such suppression of a trivial
nature, which would in no circumstance, be read as a
deliberate attempt to hide true facts to secure
appointment in police force.
15. The whole idea of verification of character and
antecedent is to ascertain whether the person
concerned is suitable for the post in question. It is one
of the important criteria which is necessary to be
fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent in
a police service ought not to have criminal
antecedents, in which case he may not be adjudged
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
as suitable for the post. The verification of
antecedents is necessary to find out the fitness of the
incumbent in all respects. The information provided
by the candidate regarding his 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 statement.
16. Because of the cleavage of opinion regarding
termination of the service of an employee on grounds
of furnishing wrong/erroneous information regarding
his antecedents, a Division Bench of the Supreme
Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P.;
(2012) 8 SCC 748 referred the matter to a larger
Bench.
17. The larger Bench in Avtar Singh v. Union of
India and Ors.; (2016) 8 SCC 471, summarized
the law in this regard as follows:
1. Information given to the employer by
a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
whether before or after entering into
service must be true and there should be
no suppression or false mention of
required information.
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.
3. The employer shall take into
consideration the government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to
the employee, at the time of taking the
decision.
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:
5. In a case trivial in nature in which
conviction had been recorded, such as
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
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.
6. Where conviction has been recorded in
case which is not trivial in nature,
employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
7. 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.
8. In a case where the employee has
made declaration truthfully of a
concluded criminal case, the employer
still has the right to consider antecedents,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. In case the employee is confirmed in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
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.
13. 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.
14. Before a person is held guilty of
suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him."
18. A bare reading at the records reveal that the
appellant was convicted by the Trial Court, but was let
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
go under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The
appeal was allowed on technical grounds of no
witness having come forth in the witness box and the
Doctor's report not being available on record. There is
nothing on record also to indicate that the
inquiry/question in the verification form was
unintelligible or not capable of being understood by
the applicant/employee.
19. The information about the implication of the
appellant in the criminal case could be discovered only
when the verification form was sent to his home
district for confirmation.
20. Since an appeal was filed by the appellant
against the conviction in the criminal case, the
appellant cannot take the plea that he had no idea
about his implication in the criminal case.
21. The employer, therefore, was justified in taking
a call, especially with respect to a member of the
police force, whose job and nature of duties is
sensitive. The employer, therefore, in his wisdom,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
thought that allowing the appellant to continue in
service would not be conducive in any respect
whatsoever.
22. The implication of the appellant in such a
criminal case does not appear to be trivial by any
yardstick. It is prudent to be left to the discretion of
the employer whether to ignore such suppression of
fact or false information furnished by the appellant by
condoning such lapse.
23. The learned Single Judge was justified in
holding that all procedural formalities were followed in
putting the appellant to the rigors of departmental
proceeding and the Court could not have sat on the
wisdom and decision of the employer/disciplinary
authority in not considering it as a venial peccadillo.
After all, a member of the police force is required to
be above suspicion and of absolute fair antecedent or
else the faith in policing system would dwindle.
24. On a careful consideration of facts, we do not
find it to be a fit case to interfere with the judgment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.382 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
of the learned Single Judge.
25. The appeal stands dismissed.
26. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stand
disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
sunilkumar/-
Saurav
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
