Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the representation must be examined in accordance with the Avtar Singh guidelines and directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned order, disposing of the writ without granting mandamus.
Summary
Manoj Kumar Prasad applied for the post of Sub‑Inspector of Police under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004 and was recommended by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission. During the character verification he marked a cross in the clause relating to pending criminal cases, which the authorities later treated as suppression of material information and rejected his appointment through two memoranda dated 18‑12‑2018 and 02‑06‑2020. The petitioner argued that the three cases filed against him were frivolous, he had been acquitted, and the cross‑mark was an inadvertent mistake, invoking the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and related precedents. The State contended that the suppression justified denial of appointment as per established guidelines. The Court examined the relevant case law, held that the representation must be considered in light of the Avtar Singh guidelines, and directed the Additional Chief Secretary to pass a reasoned order within 60 days, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The effect of alleged suppression of information in a verification form on eligibility for appointment.
- Whether acquittal of pending criminal cases and the nature of the offences negate the ground for cancellation of candidature.
- Whether the authorities erred in rejecting the petitioner's representation despite the BSSC recommendation.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel appointment of the petitioner.
Subjects
- appointment
- sub‑inspector
- police
- verification form
- suppression of information
- acquittal
- mandamus
- certiorari
- Bihar Staff Selection Commission
- Avtar Singh guidelines
- criminal cases
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10060 of 2024
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Prasad son of Nakul Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Maulabagh,
Near S.B. College, North Gate, Tar Bagan, P.S.- Ara Nawada, District-
Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Homes,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Homes, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Nehru Path, Patna.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel and Administrative)
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna.
6. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna.
7. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumar Pankaj (AC to SC-5)
For the BSSC : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate
Mr. Aman Kr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Staff
Selection Commission.
2. The present writ application has been filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ/writs and order/orders in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo
No.P-2/07-02-27-2019-Part-22/858 dated 02.06.2020
(Annexure-P/6) issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
2/15
General of Police (Personnel and Administrative), Bihar, Patna
(Respondent no.4), by which the application submitted by the
petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector in view
of the recommendation made by the Bihar Staff Selection
Commission, Patna/Respondent no.6 has been rejected. Further
for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 858/401926/P-
2 dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure-P/5) issued under the signature
of Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna, by
which the representation filed by the petitioner for his
appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector has been rejected.
Further, in the nature of mandamus for directing and
commanding the respondents particularly the respondent nos.3
& 4 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector in
pursuance to the recommendation made by the Bihar Staff
Selection Commission, Patna against the Advertisement No. 704
of 2004. Further, for a direction upon the respondents to give the
petitioner all legal consequential and financial benefits against
the said appointment treating the appointment of the petitioner
in the same transaction in which the person below in panel have
been appointed by the Respondent authority for the ends of
justice and equity and further for any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
3/15
this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner being a Graduate, applied for the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 704
of 2004 published by the respondent authorities against the
Scheduled Caste category. Counsel submits that the petitioner
appeared in the physical test and passed the said test. Then, the
petitioner appeared in the written test and he also completed the
same and accordingly, the name of petitioner was recommended
by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna for his
appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance
to the said Advertisement No. 704 of 2004. Counsel further
submits that after the final recommendation made by the
Commission, the office of respondent no.2 issued an
advertisement to appear for medical test and character
verification and for that, candidate was required to appear
before the Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police on
07.07.2008 at 10 A.M. Counsel submits that since, the petitioner
belongs to the district of Bhojpur, therefore, he appeared before
the Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police on 07.07.2008.
Counsel submits that the petitioner was given a verification
form and in the said verification form, he has put the cross mark
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
4/15
in front of Clause-7 which was regarding criminal and civil
cases as to whether the applicant had ever been an accused in a
criminal or civil case or ever served imprisonment? Counsel
submits that the petitioner innocently put the cross mark in the
said clause-7 of the verification form. Counsel submits that
during the character verification, a report was called for from
the office of Superintendent of Police, Ara who submitted the
report giving information about the pending cases against the
petitioner in Nawada Police Station, due to which his
appointment was kept pending. Counsel further submits that due
to family dispute, relating to partition, the cousin of the
petitioner had instituted three criminal cases against him, in
which the petitioner has falsely been implicated only with a
view to harass and humiliate and also with intention that the
petitioner may not get government job, because the petitioner
was seriously preparing for competitive examination.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner in the meantime acquitted in the
pending criminal cases by the Lower Court and the petitioner
submitted his application before the concerned authority with
request to appoint him on the said post, informing about the
acquittal, upon which the matter was again verified and report
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
5/15
was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur who
informed giving information that the petitioner has acquitted in
the pending criminal cases which is apparent vide Memo No.
322 dated 28.04.2018 (Annexure-P/4). Counsel submits that the
request of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police was rejected by the Inspector General of
Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna vide letter bearing Memo No.
858/401926/P-2 dated 18.12.2018. Counsel further submits that
the petitioner submitted an application before the concerned
higher authority with request to appoint him on the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police in view of the order dated 24.10.2018 passed
in Contempt Case No. 14-18/2018 (arising out of Civil Appeal
No. 2795-2797/2017) by which 133 appellants have been
appointed on the said post in October, 2018. Counsel submits
that the petitioner got highest marks which has been rejected by
the Deputy Inspector, General of Police (Personnel) vide Memo
No. P-2/07-02-27-2019-Part-22/858 dated 02.06.2020. Counsel
submits that thereafter, the petitioner submitted his
representation before the concerned higher authority of the
Home Department, Bihar, Patna to review the order passed by
the D.I.G., Patna dated 02.06.2020, stating all the facts and
relevant ground, but the respondent authority has not taken any
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
6/15
steps with regard to the representation filed by the petitioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner again sent a reminder on 10.08.2023.
But, when no decision taken, then the petitioner moved before
this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the counter affidavit has been filed, in which the
stand has been taken by the respondent authority that the
representation of the petitioner was rejected twice. Firstly, in the
year 2018 and thereafter, in the year 2020. It has also been
stated in the counter affidavit that during the appointment
process, the petitioner had suppressed a material fact in his
character verification form regarding pendency of three criminal
cases against him, in which he has been acquitted. Counsel
further submits that it is an admitted fact that the advertisement
was of the year 2004 and at the time of filing of the form, there
was no suppression and at that very time, there was no criminal
case pending against the petitioner. He further submits that
when result came for the first time, he has filed application, but
due to inadvertent mistake, in column 7, he has put cross mark.
He submits that the said appointment process has not been
proceeded and a fresh result has come in the light of the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
7/15
further that in the light of the said result, second time, in which
he was at serial no.156, no demand for fresh verification has
been called for. Rather, it is the petitioner who himself disclosed
the acquittal of all three cases, but the respondent authorities has
taken this aspect in negative way and did not considered the
petitioner’s case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case of Commr. Of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar reported
in (2011) 4 SCC 644, wherein it has been observed that at the
age of 20 years, young people often commit indiscretions, and
such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will
be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a
manner as older people. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has taken the view that approach should be to condone minor
indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as
criminals for the rest of their lives. Counsel submits that the
reason for filing criminal cases has already been explained that
all the three cases have been filed by the petitioner’s cousin only
and only on the dispute of partition. Therefore, the petitioner’s
case must not be considered and treated as like that of criminal,
and a sympathetic view may be taken into consideration in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
8/15
light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the orders under challenge are Annexure-P/5 i.e.
Memo No. 858/401926/P-2 dated 18.12.2018 and Annexure-P/6
i.e.Memo No.P-2/07-02-27-2019-Part-22/858 dated 02.06.2020.
Counsel submits that both the annexures are well reasoned.
Counsel submits that in the order, it has been categorically
indicated that the Administrative Reform Department,
Government of Bihar has categorically issued instruction that
fulfilling wring information and not disclosing the important
fact shall be disentitlement for the government service. He also
submits that if, the fact discloses during any time during service,
that he has suppressed any fact and wrong information made in
the verification, then his services may be ended. Counsel
submits that the petitioner has made suppression in the
verification form which comes to the knowledge of the
respondent authorities prior to issuance of appointment.
8. Learned counsel for the State also submits that in
support of his contention, in Annexure-P/5, series of cases
decided by this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India have been discussed, viz., C.W.J.C. No. 13845 of 2009
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
9/15
(Raju Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), duly approved in
L.P.A. No. 266 of 2010 & S.L.P. (C) No. 14729 of 2010; Civil
Appeal No. 9913 of 2010 (Daya Sankar Yadav Vs. Union of
India & Ors); Delhi Administration through its Chief
Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar, reported in (1996) 11 SCC
605; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437; R. Radhakrishnan Vs.
Director General of Police & Ors., reported in (2008) 1 SCC
660 and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen,
reported in (2008) 11 SCC 314.
9. Learned counsel for the State also submits that in
the counter affidavit, Annexure-A i.e. Letter No. 6831 dated
23.07.2020 has been attached, issued by the General
Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, in which a
latest circular has been issued in the light of a judgment passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.
18798 of 2017 (S.L.P. (C) No. 20525 of 2011), Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India & Ors., decided on 15.11.2017, reported in
(2016) 8 SCC 471. Counsel submits that in para 4 of the said
judgment, certain guidelines/conditions have been issued which
has been quoted in the said letter of the General Administrative
Department, Government of Bihar dated 23.07.2020. Counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
10/15
further submits that in the light of the said order and the circular,
the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and therefore, he
submits that the case of the petitioner has been rejected at once.
10. In the light of the submissions made, the only
point that requires particular consideration is the different
judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State for the purpose of deciding this case.
10.1. It is true that in the earlier verification, correct
entry has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the verification
form and about pendency and disclosure regarding criminal or
civil case, there is a cross mark in clause 7 of the verification
form. But, as per the pleading, it also transpires to this Court
that cases have been filed by one and the same person i.e. the
petitioner’s cousin and in all cases, petitioner has been
acquitted.
11. Upon perusal of the various judgments which
have been placed by both the parties, it transpires to this Court
that the latest judgment is the judgment of Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 18798 of 2017
(S.L.P. (C) No. 20525 of 2011), decided on 15.11.2017, whose
para 4 is very much relevant and contains the certain
guidelines/conditions and the same has also been quoted in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
11/15
letter dated 23.07.2020 issued by the General Administrative
Department, Govt. of Bihar, which reads as under:-
“4. In Avtar Singh v. Union of India and
Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, this
Court has considered in detail as to the
circumstances under which the stringent
action could be taken and to what extent the
employer can exercise its discretion.
Relevant portion reads as follows:-
38.1 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.
38.2. 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.
38.3. The employer shall take into
consideration the Government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
12/15
application/verification form and such fact
later comes to knowledge of employer, any
of the following recourse appropriate to the
case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which
conviction had been recorded, such as
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.
38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded
in case which is not trivial in nature,
employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3 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.
38.5. In a 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
13/15
compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. 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.
38.7. 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.
38.8. 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.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in
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.
38.10. For determining suppression or false
information attestation/verification form has
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
14/15
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.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of
suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable to
him.”
12. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires to this
Court that still, the representation of the petitioner is pending
before the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Homes,
Government of Bihar, Patna, on which no decision has been
taken since 2023. The decision has been taken by the
subordinate authorities and there is a circular dated 23.07.2020,
whose clause 38.4.1 states as follows:-
“38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which
conviction had been recorded, such as
shouting slogans at young age or for a petty
offence which if disclosed would not have
Patna High Court CWJC No.10060 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
15/15
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.”
13. In both the orders, the situation which has been
pleaded by the petitioner has not been considered. Therefore,
this Court deems it appropriate that the Letter No. 6831 dated
23.07.2020 (Annexure-A), issued by the General Administrative
Department, Government of Bihar be taken into consideration
by the concerned respondent authority and then decide this
matter within 60 days from the date of production of a copy of
this order and the Respondent no.2 i.e. Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Homes, Government of Bihar, Patna is
directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the
petitioner’s representation within the said period.
14. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and
direction, this writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…