Patna High Court
Nirmala KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the dismissal of the petitioner for false declaration in the verification form stands.
Summary
Nirmala Kumari, a constable recruited to the Bihar Police, was dismissed after a verification form she submitted falsely stated that no criminal case was pending against her, despite an existing case. She filed a writ petition seeking to quash the dismissal order, reinstate her, and obtain back wages. The State argued that the false statement violated Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual and that established Supreme Court precedents (Avtar Singh and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.) support dismissal for such misrepresentation. The Court examined the verification form, the relevant police manual rules, and the cited case law, concluding that the petitioner’s statement was indeed false and amounted to a breach of trust. Consequently, the Court held that the dismissal was lawful and dismissed the writ petition with no relief granted.
Issues considered
- Whether dismissal of a police constable for making a false statement in the verification form is valid under the Bihar Police Manual and applicable law.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Avtar Singh (2016) on suppression of false information applies to the present facts.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, back wages, or any other relief despite the alleged false declaration.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Police Manual, 1978 — s. Rule 656, Rule 673(c)
Subjects
- false declaration
- verification form
- police recruitment
- dismissal
- trust
- employment law
- Bihar Police Manual
- reinstatement
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1101 of 2022
======================================================
Nirmala Kumari D/o Shri Mehar Chand Das Resident of Village - Below, P.S.
- Barbigha, District- Shekhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, (Home) Police
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police - cum- Inspector General of Police, Bihar,
Patna.
3. The I.G. B.M.P. Bihar, Patna.
4. The D.I.G. B.M.P. Kendriya Mandal, Patna.
5. The Commandant, B.M.P. - 02, Dihri.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar (AC to GP-4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
“I. To issue an appropriate order/s
direction/s including a writ preferably
in the nature of CERTIORARI for
quashing the order dated 15-05-19 as
contained in Memo No. 620/R.K.
passed by the DIG, BMP, Ke. Ma.
Patna whereby and where under has
been affirmed the order passed by
The Commandant B.M.P. -02, Dihri
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
2/13
vide Police order NO. 1296/2018 vide
letter dated 17-11-2018 by which the
petitioner has been dismissed from
her service having her constable No.
143.
II. To quash the police order No.
1296/2018 communicated by letter
dated 17-11-2018 passed by the
Commandant, B.M.P.2, Dihari by
which the petitioner has been
dismissed from her service having her
constable No. 143.
III. To direct the respondents to re-
instate the petitioner on the post of
constable and make the payment of
full pay and salary including arrears
of salary if any.
IV. To any other relief/s to which the
petitioner maybe found entitled in the
facts and circumstance of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was selected on the post of Constable and joined
on 01.08.2018 following the selection process and before going
on training, she was given a verification form to fulfill the same
which the petitioner filled up and submitted to the authority
concerned on 05.07.2018. The petitioner sent to B.M.P-2, Dihri
for getting her training. Counsel submits that the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
3/13
received a letter from the Commandant B.M.P-2, Dihri bearing
Letter No. 3190 dated 11.10.2018 stating therein to submit a
show cause within seven days. According to him, there was
allegation against the petitioner that a suppression has been
made in the said verification form. Counsel submits that the
petitioner has filled up her verification form ignorantly and not
deliberately. Counsel submits that the format of the verification
form was not clear as per the knowledge of the petitioner and
only due to this reason, she has filled up the said form in such a
manner. Counsel further submits that subsequently, vide Police
Order No. 1296/2018 dated 17.11.2018, the petitioner was
dismissed from her service without considering her show cause.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority, but when no decision was taken, then the petitioner
has filed writ petition before this Hon’ble Court bearing
C.W.J.C. No. 5331 of 2019 which was disposed off vide order
dated 08.04.2019 directing the Deputy Inspector General of
Police to dispose off the appeal of the petitioner as expeditiously
as possible and while deciding the appeal, all the grounds urged
on behalf of the petitioner which has been noted in the present
order shall be taken into consideration and order shall be passed
in accordance with law within the stipulated time frame.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
4/13
Thereafter, when the order was not passed then the petitioner
preferred M.J.C petition bearing M.J.C. No. 2330 of 2019 which
was disposed off by the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the impugned order here is the order dated
15.05.2019 contained in Memo No. 620/R.K. (annexed as
Annexure-11) passed by the D.I.G. B.M.P. Kendriya Mandal,
Patna by which the decision of removal of the petitioner from
service has been affirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition challenging both the orders i.e. the order
dated 15.05.2019 contained in Memo No. 620/R.K. (annexed as
Annexure-11) as well as the Police Order No. 1296/2018 dated
17.11.2018 (annexed as Annexure-4), by which the petitioner
was dismissed from her service having her Constable No.143.
Counsel for the petitioner is relying on a decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 21.07.2016 in case of
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 20525 of 2011 (annexed as Annexure-8).
Counsel submits that in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has pleased to summarize conclusion in
paragraph no. 30. Counsel submits that in paragraph no. 30(4)
of the said judgment, it is a categorical finding that in case there
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
5/13
is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal
case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded
before filing of the application/verification form and such fact
later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following
recourse appropriate to the case. Counsel submits that
considering the said decision, the Hon’ble Single Judge of this
Court at the time of passing order in C.W.J.C. No. 5331 of 2019
dated 08.04.2019 has pleased to direct the Deputy Inspector
General of Police to dispose off the appeal of the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible and while deciding the appeal, all the
grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner which has been noted
in the present order shall be taken into consideration and order
shall be passed in accordance with law within the stipulated
time frame. Counsel submits that none of the points were
considered which is apparent from Annexure-11 and therefore,
he submits that it requires interference of this Hon’ble Court
again.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that the verification form which is annexed as
Annexure-1 to the present writ petition is categorical and very
much clear as contained in Clause 7 & 8 of the said verification
form which states as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
6/13
“कया आवे दक कभी दां डडक "फौजदारी" या डसडवल
"nhokuh" मामले मे अडभयु कत रहा है अथवा कभी कारावास भु गत
चु की है ? डववरण दे ।
नहीं ।
कया आवे दक _.kxzLr है और उसके डवरद कोई दां डडक
"फौजदारी" या डसडवल "दीवानी" मामला डवचाराधीन है ?
नहीं ।"
6. Counsel for the State further submits that in the
said verification form, it was categorically stated in Clause 7
that whether the applicant has ever been accused in a criminal or
civil case or has ever been sent to jail, the entry has been made
therein as ‘No’. The Clause 8 indicates that whether the
applicant in debt and whether any criminal case or civil suit is
pending against him, the entry has been made as ‘No’. Counsel
further submits that from the pleading of the petitioner itself it is
admitted that on the date of filing of the form, there was a
criminal case pending against the petitioner. In this regard, the
State heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya reported in (2021)
10 SCC 136 and submits that the relation between the employer
and employee is of trust. In the verification form, the truth has
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
7/13
to be narrated, but the petitioner has not narrated the truth,
rather, suppressed the fact about the pendency of the case and
therefore, according to him in the light of the said decision, the
petitioner is not entitled for consideration of her appointment
and this aspect has been categorically discussed in the impugned
order and the reason has also been assigned in the impugned
order. Counsel also submits that the said verification has been
made in the light of Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual,
1978. In this background, counsel for the State submits that the
case of the petitioner is not entertainable and fit to be dismissed.
7. In the light of the submissions made, this Court
has perused Annexure-1 which is a verification form in the light
of the Rules 656 & 673 of the Bihar Police Manual 1978 and
Rule 673(c) is very much clear which states as follows:-
“(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
despatched to the Superintendent of
the district in which the recruits home
is situated. The number and date of
despatch 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
8/13
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.”
8. It further transpires to this Court that from the
record, it is apparent and admitted position that on the date of
filing up of the verification form, there was a criminal case
pending against the petitioner about which the statement has
been made in the verification form that ‘no’ criminal case is
pending and in this view of the matter, it transpires to this Court
that the statement of petitioner is false.
9. So far as the judgment on which the petitioner is
relying in case of Avtar Singh (supra), its paragraph no. 30(4) is
very much clear and states as follows:-
“(4) In case there is suppression or
false information of involvement in a
criminal case where conviction or
acquittal had already been recorded
before filing of the
application/verification form and
such fact later comes to knowledge of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
9/13
employer, any of the following
recourse appropriate to the case may
be adopted:-
(a) 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.
(b) Where conviction has been
recorded in case which is not trivial
in nature, employer may cancel
candidature or terminate services of
the employee.
(c) 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.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
10/13
10. Upon bare reading of the said observation of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh (supra), it is
apparent to this Court that in case there is a suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction
or acquittal had already been recorded before filing of the
application/verification form is not the actual fact in the present
case. In the present case at the time of filing up the verification
form, a false statement has been inserted in the verification
form. Therefore, this judgment shall not help the petitioner in
any manner.
11. So far as the judgment of Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. (supra) is concerned,
its paragraph nos.14 & 15 are very much clear which states as
follows:-
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
11/13
the declaration/verification and/or
applying for a post made false
declaration and/or not disclosing
and/or suppressing material fact of
having 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 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
catena of decision such an employee
cannot claim the appointment and/or
continue to be in service as a matter
of right.
15. In view of the aforestated facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
12/13
and circumstances of the case, both,
the learned Division Bench as well as
the learned Single Judge have clearly
erred in quashing and setting aside
the order of termination terminating
the services of the respondent on the
ground of having obtained an
appointment by suppressing material
fact and filing a false declaration.
The order of reinstatement is wholly
untenable and unjustified.”
12. It also transpires that in paragraph no. 8.8 of the
judgment of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited
& Anr. (supra), the said decision of Avtar Singh (supra) has
also been discussed in this manner which states as follows:-
“8.8 After reproducing and/or
reconsidering para 38.5 of the
decision in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh
v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425], in para
13, this Court observed and held as
under : (Abhijit Singh Pawar case
[State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar,
(2018) 18 SCC 733 : (2019) 3 SCC
(Cri) 431 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 420],
SCC p. 742)
“13. In Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v.
Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
Patna High Court CWJC No.1101 of 2022 dt.05-01-2026
13/13
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425], though
this Court was principally concerned
with the question as to non-disclosure
or wrong disclosure of information, it
was observed in para 38.5 that even
in cases where a truthful disclosure
about a concluded case was made,
the employer would still have a right
to consider antecedents of the
candidate and could not be compelled
to appoint such candidate.”
13. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal
of the relevant rules and the judgments reported by counsel for
the petitioner and the Respondent-State, this Court reached on
the conclusion that the statement made by the petitioner in the
verification form is false and the petitioner is not entitled for
any relief as per the above facts and circumstances as well as the
established law of the land. Hence, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…