Patna High Court
Arjun Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2816 of 2022
======================================================
Arjun Kumar, S/o Sri Jawahar Shah, R/o Village and P.O.- Chuhari, P.S.-
Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Police
Headquarter Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road Patna.
2. The Additional Director General of Police (Law- Order), Sardar Patel
Bhawan, Bailey Road Patna.
3. Inspector General of Police Headquarter Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road
Patna.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range (Chapra).
5. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nadim Seraj, GP- 5
Mr. Birendra Kumar, AC to GP-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2025
This Court has heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra,
learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Birendra Kumar,
learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order, as
contained in Memo No. 3431 dated 17.12.2019, passed by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra
whereby he has been dismissed from the post of Sub-Inspector
of Police. The appeal preferred against the order of dismissal
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
2/22
also came to be rejected by the Additional Director General of
Police (Law & Order), Bihar, Patna vide its order dated
16.07.2020
, which is also challenged herein.
3. Shorn of lengthy details, the necessary relevant
facts for adjudication of the lis are as follows:
(i) The petitioner was duly appointed on the post of
Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2009 and submitted his
joining on 18.02.2009 in BMP-3, Bodh Gaya for training
course. Upon completion of training course, the petitioner was
posted at Police Line, Gopalganj on 20.03.2010. While the
petitioner was rendering his services, in the meantime, one
Kanti Devi had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15500 of
2011 seeking a direction upon the concerned respondent to
enquire about the validity of appointment of the petitioner. The
writ petition came to be disposed off vide order dated
07.05.2013 directing the petitioner to approach the Director
General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna
for disposal of her representation in accordance with law.
(ii) Taking note of the imputation levelled against
the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner
vide Memo No. 550 dated 12.03.2014 making it clear that in
case no explanation is submitted, a departmental proceeding
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
shall be initiated. Notwithstanding the show-cause, when no
explanation was submitted by the petitioner, departmental
proceeding, bearing No. 21 of 2014, was initiated with a
categorical charge that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained
the appointment by concealing the fact of his being accused of
Chanpatiya P.S. Case No. 57 of 2001. Enquiry was conducted
and the charge stood proved against the petitioner. After
submission of the enquiry report, the file was sent to the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra, who vide its
order dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition)
inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service.
(iii) Aggrieved with the order of dismissal, the
petitioner preferred appeal before the Inspector General of
Police, Muzaffarpur Zone. The Appellate Authority on being
found the order suffers from infirmity, set aside the same by
order dated 27.08.2015 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and
directed for fresh departmental proceeding, keeping the
petitioner under suspension owing to the serious nature of
charges.
(iv) Pursuant thereto a fresh departmental
proceeding was initiated; in course of enquiry the Conducting
Officer found the petitioner as partly guilty and accordingly
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
submitted enquiry report to the Superintendent of Police,
Gopalganj, which has further been referred by the
Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj along with his
recommendation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Saran Range, Chapra. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Saran, Chapra on being dissatisfied in the manner, in which the
departmental proceeding was conducted, again vide its order
contained in Memo No. 1413/(C) dated 20.06.2017 relegated
the matter for fresh departmental proceeding; this led to another
enquiry after appointment of new Conducting Officer and after
thorough enquiry, enquiry report as contained in Memo No.
1189 dated 05.07.2017 came to be submitted on being found the
petitioner guilty.
(v) The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj agreed
with the enquiry report that the petitioner fraudulently obtained
his appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police by concealing his
criminal antecedent and, as such, committed fraud, vide Memo
No. 2473 dated 27.11.2023 sent the file to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Saran with its recommendation to dismiss the
petitioner from service. The petitioner had further been served
with the show-cause notice under the signature of
Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj and finally the Deputy
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
Inspector General of Police, Saran range vide its order as
contained in Memo No. 3431/C dated 17.12.2019 inflicted
punishment of dismissal with immediate effect. Aggrieved, the
petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Director
General of Police (Law & Order), Bihar, Patna. Since the appeal
could not be disposed off, in the meantime, the petitioner
approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4388 of 2021, which
stood disposed of by this Court on 30.11.2021 directing the
appellate authority to dispose of the same within a period of
three months. However, later on, the petitioner came to know
that the appeal has already been rejected vide order dated
16.07.2020.
4. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate
for the petitioner assailing the impugned orders has contended
that on account of a land dispute, a gotiya of the petitioner, who
had been carrying grudge against the petitioner and his family
members, lodged an F.I.R., bearing Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 57
of 2001 for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 447, 323, 325,
379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code to wreck vengeance and
mount undue pressure upon the father of the petitioner, who had
filed Title Suit No. 85 of 2001 against the informant and her
family members. Since the charge-sheet was submitted under
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
bailable sections and the petitioner had never remained in
custody, the petitioner could not realise the gravity of the matter,
hence failed to mention at the time of selection about the factum
of his being accused in the aforenoted case. The petitioner had
never played any fraud to obtain the service, but on account of
family feud and to take revenge with the petitioner and his
family, a criminal case with a false and fabricated allegation has
been instituted. It is further contended that the nature of offence,
even if considered, the same was trivial; and in such
circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar
Singh v. The Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC
471 has mandated the authorities concerned to take liberal view
because the punishment of dismissal is harsh and
disproportionate to the charges.
5. Reliance has also been placed on a decision
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v.
Union of India & Anr., reported in (2023) 12 SCC 317.
6. It is also contended that in identical situation a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnakant
Upadhyay Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (C.W.J.C. No.
2868 of 2023) reiterating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan
Kumar (Supra).
7. Dispelling the contention aforenoted, learned
Advocate for the State vehemently contended that the petitioner
was a charge-sheeted accused of Chanpatiya P.S. Case No. 57 of
2001, in which he was also convicted vide judgment dated
04.04.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
West Champaran, Bettiah in Trial No. 1837 of 2013 for the
offences under Sections 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appeal against the judgment of conviction preferred by the
petitioner was only modified by the learned Additional District
& Sessions Judge-III, West Champaran, Bettiah vide judgment
dated 22.04.2015 in Cr. Appeal No. 46 of 2013 and the
petitioner was released after due admonition under Section 3 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, which also amounts to
conviction, the copy of the judgment dated 22.04.2015 has been
placed on record as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit.
8. Learned Advocate for the State further contended
that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Saran inflicting punishment of dismissal and its affirmance by
the appellate authority is in accordance with law after giving
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, the
petitioner has committed serious fraud by way of concealment
of fact during verification and thus got his appointment as Sub-
Inspector of police. Heavy reliance has been placed on a
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs.
Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in identical situation held the order of
termination as justified, irrespective of the fact that the
employee was accorded the benefit of Section 12 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
9. This Court has meticulously heard the learned
Advocate for the respective parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
10. Before parting with this case, it would be apt and
proper to apprise the settled legal proposition, in the light of
which, the question posed before this Court shall be dealt with.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl.Sec.Home and
Others [(2012) 8 SCC 748], while emphasizing the need of
character verification has held that "the purpose of calling for
information regarding involvement in any criminal case or
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the
character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and
suppression of such material information will have clear
bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in
relation to his continuity in service. Verification of the character
and the antecedent is important criteria to test whether the
selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on
account of his antecedents, the appointing authority if finds it
not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be
said to be unwarranted."
12. In the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the Apex
Court enunciated a guideline to be followed by the Courts while
considering the identical nature of challenge. The Court after
reconciling all the situation summarized and concluded in para-
38 of the decision, inter alia, that 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.
The Court has given a leeway in cases only where 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following
recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted. In a case trivial
in nature in which conviction had been recorded, the employer
may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapses. The emphasis has been
given where the 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.
13. Notwithstanding the principles laid down in Avtar
Singh (supra) by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, when divergent views were expressed, the Apex Court in
the case of Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and
Others [(2023) 7 SCC 536], taking into consideration the
inconsistent views in the cases of Union of India and Others v.
Methu Meda [(2022) 1 SCC 1], Union of India and Others v.
Dilip Kumar Mallick [(2023) 12 SCC 331], Pawan Kumar v.
Union of India and Anr. [(2023) 12 SCC 317], Rajasthan
Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya
[(2021) 10 SCC 136] and Mohammed Imran vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others [(2019) 17 SCC 696], further laid
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
down the following principles:-
"92. The only reason to refer to and look into
the various decisions rendered by this Court as
above over a period of time is that the principles of
law laid therein governing the subject are bit
inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision
in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) different courts
have enunciated different principles:-
"93. In such circumstances, we undertook
some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of
law which should be made applicable to the
litigations of the present nature. The principles are
as follows:
93.1. Each case should be scrutinised
thoroughly by the public employer concerned,
through its designated officials-more so, in the
case of recruitment for the police force, who are
under a duty to maintain order, and tackle
lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public
confidence is a bulwark to society's security.
93.2. Even in a case where the employee
has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a
concluded criminal case, the employer still has the
right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal
in a criminal case would not automatically entitle
a candidate for appointment to the post. It would
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
be still open to the employer to consider the
antecedents and examine whether the candidate
concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to
the post.
93.3. The suppression of material
information and making a false statement in the
verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution,
conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the
character, conduct and antecedents of the
employee. If it is found that the employee had
suppressed or given false information in regard to
the matters having a bearing on his fitness or
suitability to the post, he can be terminated from
service.
93.4. The generalisations about the youth,
career prospects and age of the candidates leading
to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should
not enter the judicial verdict and should be
avoided.
93.5. The Court should inquire whether the
Authority concerned whose action is being
challenged acted mala fide.
93.6. Is there any element of bias in the
decision of the Authority?
93.7. Whether the procedure of inquiry
adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and
reasonable?"
14. After going through the afore-noted ruling, it is
obvious that the Court held in no uncertain terms that even in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a
concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to
consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not
automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It
would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents
and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit
for appointment to the post. If it is found that the employee had
suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters
having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can
be terminated from service.
15. The impeccable character and integrity has given
primacy and mandatorily required to be inducted in a
disciplined force, which is the very mandate of Rule 673 of the
Bihar Police Manual, which reads as follows:-
"673.(a) Verification roll.-- A verification
roll shall be prepared in P.M. Form no.101 and
sent for verification to the home district of every
candidate, for the post of Sub Inspector, Reserve
Sub-Inspector and Constable or any ministerial
post.
(b) In the case of semi-literate men such as
those recruited under relaxation of minimum
educational qualification in rule 663 the questions
on the roll shall be put to the candidate by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
reserve officer or an officer nominated for the
purpose by the Superintendent, and that officer
shall write down the answers, sign these with his
full signature and produce these, together with the
candidate, before the Superintendent. Literate
persons shall fill in and sign the answers
themselves. The Superintendent, if satisfied with
the answers, will sign the roll, have the impression
of the man's left thumb taken in the space provided
and pass an order for his enlistment.
(c) Enlistment orders.--The order for
enlistments shall then be entered in the order book,
the service book shall be prepared and the
verification roll dispatched to the Superintendent
of the district in which the recruits home is
situated. The number and date of dispatch shall be
noted in the proper place in the service-book, and
on the 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
shall initial this entry, have the necessary entry
made in the service-book and order the
verification roll to be filed. If the character of the
man is reported to be bad or his statement false, he
shall be removed from the force."
16. Further, Rule 668 of the Bihar Police Manual also
mandates character verification with a clear stipulation that in
case any false declaration regarding criminal antecedent is
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
made, the same shall render a candidate ineligible for
appointment.
17. Bare reading of the prescriptions noted and
discussed hereinabove, it is imperative to observe that any
suppression or misrepresentation of facts during the recruitment
process, particularly in matters related to criminal antecedent is
considered as grave misconduct and if a candidate failed to meet
the higher standard of integrity and honesty during the
recruitment process cannot be considered suitable for service in
the police force.
18. The Apex Court in the case of Anil Kanwariya
(supra), while considering the submissions on behalf of the
employee, whose services were terminated on the ground of
filing a false declaration to the effect that neither any criminal
case is pending against him, nor has he been convicted by any
court of law, in view of the fact that he has subsequently been
granted benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act
and thus his service ought not to have been terminated, has
observed in paras-13 and 14 as under:-
"13. Even otherwise, subsequently getting
the benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act shall not
be helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the
question is about filing a false declaration on 14-4-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
2015 that neither any criminal case is pending
against him nor has he been convicted by any
court of law, which was much prior to the order
passed by the learned Sessions Court granting the
benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act. As observed
hereinabove, even in case of subsequent acquittal,
the employee once made a false declaration and/or
suppressed the material fact of pending criminal
case shall not be entitled to an appointment as a
matter of right.
14. The issue/question may be considered
from another angle, from the employer's point of
view. The question is not about whether an
employee was involved in a dispute of trivial
nature and whether he has been subsequently
acquitted or not. The question is about the
credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an
employee who at the initial stage of the
employment i.e. while submitting the
declaration/verification and/or applying for a post
made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or
suppressing material fact of having been involved
in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have
been disclosed, the employer might not have
appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer
feels that an employee who at the initial stage
itself has made a false statement and/or not
disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the
material facts and therefore he cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
continued in service because such an employee
cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer
cannot be forced to continue such an employee.
The choice/option whether to continue or not to
continue such an employee always must be given
to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed and as observed hereinabove in a catena
of decisions such an employee cannot claim the
appointment and/or continue to be in service as a
matter of right."
19. In view of the settled proposition, as discussed
hereinabove, now coming to the facts of the case, which are
admitted that the petitioner was duly appointed to the post of
Sub-Inspector in the year 2009 and after completing training
course, he was posted in District Police Force, Gopalganj and
submitted his joining on 20.03.2010. The date on which the
petitioner was appointed, there was a criminal case pending
against him along with others bearing Chanpatia P.S. Case
No.57 of 2001 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 149, 447, 323, 325, 379 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code, but this fact has not been disclosed.
20. The aforesaid criminal case finally ended with the
conviction of the petitioner and others vide judgment dated
04.04.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
West Champaran, Bettiah in Trial No.1837 of 2013. The
petitioner has been found guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, which
judgment of conviction was challenged by the petitioner before
the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bettiah and finally the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, West
Champaran, Bettiah, modified the judgment and the petitioner
was released after due admonition under Section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act.
21. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner was
subjected to departmental proceedings bearing no. 21 of 2014.
During the course of enquiry, the charge, especially with regard
to the concealment of fact of he being accused of Chanpatiya
P.S. Case No. 57 of 2001 came to be proved and the petitioner
was served with the second show-cause notice. On being found
the explanation of the petitioner not satisfactory, the impugned
order of dismissal came to be passed, which was also affirmed
in the appeal by the Appellate Authority.
22. The petitioner has not questioned the legality and
the procedural defect of the disciplinary proceedings, save and
except the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the
charges and institution of the criminal case at the behest of one
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
Kanti Devi, who is said to be one of his gotiyas, is wholly mala
fide and; all the more, subjected offences were trivial in nature;
hence, liberal view should be taken in the case of the petitioner.
23. It would be worth noting here that judicial review
is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in
which decision has been made. Power of judicial review is
meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and
not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eyes of law. It is settled proposition of
law that in case of disciplinary enquiry, the Court is only
concerned with the validity of enquiry procedure and not the
merit of the decision.
24. Emphasizing the afore-noted settled proposition, a
three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Ors. v.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava [(2021) 2 SCC 612], has held in paras-
24 and 28 as follows:-
"24. It is thus settled that the power of
judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an
evaluation of the decision-making process and not
the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of
conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the
proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of the statutory rules
prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable
person would have ever reached or where the
conclusions upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse
or suffer from patent error on the face of record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari
could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial
review cannot be extended to the examination of
correctness or reasonableness of a decision of
authority as a matter of fact.
25.27. * * *
28. The constitutional court while
exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under
Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution
would not interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings
except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e.
where there is no evidence to support a finding or
where a finding is such that no man acting
reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived
at those findings and so long as there is some
evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by
the departmental authority, the same has to be
sustained."
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
25. It is also need to be emphasized herein that the
question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matter is
primarily for the disciplinary authority, and the jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited
and is confined to the applicability of one or the other of the
well-known principles known as Wednesbury principles,
namely, whether the order was contrary to law or whether the
relevant factors were not considered or whether irrelevant
factors were considered or whether the decision was one which
no reasonable person could have taken [vide Om Kumar and
Others v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386].
26. Having considered the gamut of the entire facts, in
the premise of the settled legal position, the impugned order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and duly affirmed by the
Appellate Authority do not require any interference. However,
as this Court has been apprised that during the short period of
service of the petitioner, he has been rewarded on 22 occasions
and received various awards by his superior officers and the
order of conviction, which has finally been modified by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, West
Champaran, Bettiah with due admonition under Section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act on being found the offence trivial in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2816 of 2022 dt. 09-05-2025
nature, this Court is hereby observed that dismissal of the writ
petition would not preclude the petitioner to approach the
Director General of Police, Government of Bihar with a review
application/memorandum, in terms of the prescriptions of the
Bihar Police Manual.
27. The writ petition stands closed with the liberty
and observations made hereinabove.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 11.02.2025
Uploading Date 12-05-2025
Transmission Date NA
