Patna High Court
Vivek Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 2 September, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12435 of 2025
======================================================
Vivek Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Parshuram Singh, Resident of Village-
Basudeopur, Dumariya, P.S.- Bihiya, District- Bhojpur, Pin- 802351.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar.
3. The D.I.G. of Police, Begusarai Range, Begusarai.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mayanand Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-09-2025
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed
challenging the order as contained in memo no.4853 dated
27.09.2024
passed by the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai,
by which the petitioner has been terminated from the service.
The petitioner has also challenged the order contained in memo
no.437 dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Inspector
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
General of Police, Begusarai, by which the appeal of the
petitioner has been rejected.
3. By way of filing Interlocutory Application
No.01 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for amending the
prayer portion of the main writ petition and also challenged the
order contained in memo no.261 dated 24.06.2025 issued by the
Director General of Police, Bihar, by which the Memorial
preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal order has been
rejected.
4. For the reasons mentioned in the
interlocutory application, it is allowed and the averments made
in the interlocutory application will be treated to be the part of
the main writ petition.
5. Pursuant to Advertisement No.02 of 2019,
the petitioner had applied and was selected on the post of
Constable in the Bihar Police on 06.07.2021 and thereafter he
submitted his joining in Begusarai District Police. On
08.07.2021 the petitioner filled up the Character Verification
Form wherein at serial no.7 the query was whether the applicant
was ever accused in any criminal or civil case or has undergone
imprisonment, in which the petitioner had mentioned as "No".
Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai sought a
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
report from the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur vide his letter
dated 12.07.2021 regarding the Character Verification Form of
the petitioner. After receipt of the report from the
Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, the petitioner was served
with a show-cause notice dated 10.08.2022 asking him to
explain as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated
against him for concealing vital information about his
involvement in a criminal case i.e. Bihiya P.S. Case No.373 of
2020 dated 27.09.2020 registered under sections 147 /149 /341 /
323/307/504/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under
section 27 of the Arms Act.
6. On receipt of the show-cause notice, the
petitioner filed his explanation and explained the entire facts
and also brought on record the compromise petition filed in the
said case by the parties including the informant on 15.07.2021
and requested the authority not to initiate the department
proceeding against him for the aforesaid charge. However, the
Superintendent of Police did not accept the explanation of the
petitioner and passed an order for initiation of departmental
proceeding against the petitioner vide memo no.3137 dated
02.11.2022 enclosing imputation of charge of concealment of
pendency of criminal case while filling up Character
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
Verification Form. Therefore, the petitioner participated in the
departmental proceeding and filed his defense statement and
denied the charge levelled against him. Thereafter, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report dated 31.07.2024 holding the
petitioner partially guilty of the charge. On receipt of the
enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai issued
letter dated 13.08.2024 asking the petitioner to submit his final
defence statement and accordingly, the petitioner submitted the
same. However, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the
Superintendent of Police, Begusarai issued an order terminating
the service of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order
of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai, which was
rejected vide order dated 30.01.2025. Against the order passed
by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a Memorial before
the Director General of Police, Bihar, which was rejected vide
order dated 24.06.2025.
7. It has been submitted by learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of filling up the
Character Verification Form the petitioner had no knowledge
about his involvement in Bihiya P.S. Case No.373 of 2020 and
therefore, there was no occasion for him to mention about the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
same in the said Character Verification Form. Moreover, the
aforesaid criminal case has already been compromised and a
compromise petition has already been filed by the parties
including the informant therein in the Court of learned
Magistrate on 15.07.2021.
8. It has also been submitted by learned Senior
Counsel that when the petitioner came to know that in spite of
filing of the compromise petition the case is still pending, he
moved for bail before the learned A.C.J.M., Bhojpur and the
learned A.C.J.M., vide order dated 19.01.2022 granted bail to
the petitioner.
9. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner was not staying in his
village rather he was staying in Ara and was preparing for
competitive examination and this fact has already been
mentioned in the letter dated 28.12.2024 issued by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Bihiya Police Station forwarded by the
S.H.O. of Bihiya Police Station vide Diary No. 2972 dated
28.12.2024. Further no witness was examined on behalf of the
department to prove the charge against the petitioner and even
the Investigating Officer of the case and the S.H.O. of Bihiya
Police Station have not been examined in order to establish that
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
the petitioner was noticed in the aforesaid pending criminal
case. On the contrary, the report of the Bihiya Police Station
indicates that during investigation it was found that the
petitioner was studying at Ara before the date of occurrence.
10. It has also been argued that the finding of the
Enquiry Officer is based on conjectures and surmises as he has
observed that the delinquent employee should have filled up the
Character Verification Form only after ascertaining full facts
when it is the categorical submission of the petitioner that he
had no knowledge about his involvement in any case.
11. It is the submission of the petitioner that he
has not been provided the opportunity of availing the assistance
of any Government servant during the departmental proceeding
and to cross-examine the witnesses, inasmuch as, the petitioner
was not provided any opportunity to adduce the evidence in his
defence.
12. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that though the Enquiry
Officer has held the petitioner to be partially guilty and the same
was also accepted by the Superintendent of Police but the
imposition of punishment of termination from the service is too
harsh and disproportionate to the alleged charge, more so, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
light of the fact that the aforesaid criminal case was not in the
knowledge of the petitioner while filling the form and the same
was later on, compromised by the parties and in this regard a
compromise petition was also filed before the concerned
Magistrate.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported as (2016) 8 SCC 471; Pawan Kumar vs. Union of
India & Anr. reported as (2023) 12 SCC 317 and Ravindra
Kumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported as
(2024) 5 SCC 264.
14. In this case, the State has filed its counter
affidavit and opposed the arguments of the petitioner. The stand
of the respondent-State is that the impugned order passed by the
authorities are legal since the petitioner had suppressed the
material fact regarding the criminal case registered against him
at the time of filing of the Character Verification Form.
15. Considered the submissions of the parties
and perused the materials on record.
16. In the present case, a departmental
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for the charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
that he has suppressed the material fact regarding his
involvement in the criminal case while filling up the Character
Verification Form and in the said departmental proceeding he
has been found partially guilty by the Enquiry Officer and the
disciplinary authority has agreed with the finding of the Enquiry
Officer and has awarded the punishment thereby terminating the
services of the petitioner, which has been upheld by the
appellate authority.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down
the law that how the authorities should proceed in the matter
when implication of the applicant in criminal case was
suppressed and when the nature of offence was trivial.
18. In Avatar Singh vs. Union of India (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"34. No doubt about it that verification of
character and antecedents is one of the
important criteria to assess suitability
and it is open to employer to adjudge
antecedents of the incumbent, but
ultimate action should be based upon
objective criteria on due consideration of
all relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of "material" information
presupposes that what is suppressed that
"matters" not every technical or trivial
matter. The employer has to act on due
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
consideration of rules/instructions, if any,
in exercise of powers in order to cancel
candidature or for terminating the
services of employee. Though a person
who has suppressed the material
information cannot claim unfettered
right for appointment or continuity in
service but he has a right not to be dealt
with arbitrarily and exercise of power
has to be in reasonable manner with
objectivity having due regard to facts of
cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to
depend upon the nature of post, higher
post would involve more rigorous criteria
for all services, not only to uniformed
service. For lower posts which are not
sensitive, nature of duties, impact of
suppression on suitability has to be
considered by authorities concerned
considering post / nature of duties /
services and power has to be exercised
on due consideration of various aspects.
38.10. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
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." (emphasis supplied)
19. In the case of Pawan Kumar vs. Union of
India & Anr. (supra) it has been held as under :-
"13. What emerges from the exposition as
laid down by this Court is that by mere
suppression of material / false
information regardless of the fact
whether there is a conviction or
acquittal has been recorded, the
employee/recruit is not to be
discharged/terminated axiomatically
from service just by a stroke of pen. At
the same time, the effect of suppression
of material / false information
involving in a criminal case, if any, is
left for the employer to consider all the
relevant facts and circumstances
available as to antecedents and keeping
in view the objective criteria and the
relevant service rules into
consideration, while taking appropriate
decision regarding continuance /
suitability of the employee into service.
What has been noticed by this Court is
that mere suppression of material /
false information in a given case does
not mean that the employer can
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
arbitrarily discharge/terminate the
employee from service." (emphasis
supplied)
20. In the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. The State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra), it has been held as under: -
"34. On the facts of the case and in the
backdrop of the special circumstances set
out hereinabove, where does the non-
disclosure of the unfortunate criminal
case, (which too ended in acquittal),
stand in the scheme of things? In our
opinion on the peculiar facts of the case,
we do not think it can be deemed fatal for
the appellant. Broad-brushing every
non-disclosure as a disqualification,
will be unjust and the same will
tantamount to being completely
oblivious to the ground realities
obtaining in this great, vast and diverse
country. Each case will depend on the
facts and circumstances that prevail
thereon, and the court will have to take
a holistic view, based on objective
criteria, with the available precedents
serving as a guide. It can never be a one
size fits all scenario." (emphasis
supplied).
21. Admittedly, the petitioner was made accused
in Bihiya P.S. Case No.373 of 2020 registered under sections
147/149/341/323/307/504/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code and
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
under section 27 of the Arms Act. The aforesaid case was filed
by the uncle of the petitioner but during investigation the parties
have entered into a compromise as they are close relatives and a
compromises petition was also filed to this effect in the court of
learned Magistrate. The petitioner thought that once
compromise petition was filed the case had ended but after
joining of the petitioner into the services of the Bihar Police the
charge-sheet in the aforesaid case was filed. Pertinently, the
petitioner while preparing for various competitive examinations
was not staying at his village rather he was staying at Ara and
therefore, he was not aware of the pending criminal case lodged
by his uncle. In these circumstances, the declaration of the
petitioner that there is no criminal case pending against him is
bona fide mistake. Further, the petitioner was appointed as
Constable in the Bihar Police and the impact of bona fide
mistake of suppressing the pending criminal case as well as the
nature of allegation levelled in the criminal case which had
ultimately been compromised between the parties would not
make much difference on the suitability of the petitioner.
22. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts of the
present case and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Avatar Singh (supra), Pawan Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
(supra) and Ravindra Kumar (supra), I am of the view that the
petitioner should not have been terminated because of the
pendency of criminal case filed by his uncle which was later on
compromised.
23. Moreover, the impugned orders are non-
speaking and cryptic in nature. Though the respondent
authorities have noted the grounds raised by the petitioner but
the findings are cryptic and non-speaking and on this ground
alone, the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities
cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited
& Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported as (2010) 9
SCC 496.
24. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the
impugned orders i.e. order as contained in memo no.4853 dated
27.09.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai,
the order contained in memo no.437 dated 30.01.2025 passed by
the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai and the order
as contained in memo no.261 dated 24.06.2025 issued by the
Director General of Police, Bihar are hereby quashed.
25. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai is
directed to accept the joining of the petitioner forthwith.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12435 of 2025 dt.02-09-2025
26. The petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits.
27. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, this writ petition is allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A.
Uploading Date 08.09.2025
Transmission Date 08.09.2025
