Patna High Court
Ankesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature for suppressing a pending criminal case is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Anur Kumar applied for the Bihar Police Sub‑Inspector post, cleared all selection stages, but was later found to have declared ‘No’ to any pending criminal case in his application, while a case was actually pending and he was on bail. The appointing authority cancelled his candidature under Clause 19(xii) of the advertisement, even though the case was closed before the cancellation order. The petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation and his appointment, arguing mistake and that the case was already closed. The court examined the advertisement clauses, the Bihar Police Manual Rule 673(c), and precedents on non‑disclosure of criminal matters, concluding that the petitioner knowingly suppressed the fact and therefore the cancellation was lawful. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of cancelling a candidate's candidature for non‑disclosure of a pending criminal case when the case was later closed.
- Whether the provisions of the advertisement (Clause 11 and Clause 19(xii)) and Bihar Police Manual permit cancellation despite the case's closure.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged mistake or lack of knowledge can excuse the false declaration.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment after successful selection.
Subjects
- Police Sub‑Inspector appointment
- Non‑disclosure of criminal case
- Cancellation of candidature
- Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission
- Writ petition
- Character verification
- Rule 673(c) Bihar Police Manual
- Trust and credibility
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.126 of 2025
======================================================
Ankesh Kumar S/o Dinesh Mahto resident of Village-Behorchak, P.S.-Bakhri,
District-Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Police, Subordinate Service Commission through its Chairman,
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission through its
Chairman, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Inspector, General of Police -cum Appointing Authority,
Begusarai Range, Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.K., Sinha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Indrajeet Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3
Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3
For the BPSSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kr. Jha, Advocate
Mr. Prabhakar Pahepuri,Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2026
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar
Police Subordinate Service Commission.
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
2/22
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the order contained in Memo No. 108 dated
24.10.2024 issued by the Appointing Authority-cum-Deputy
Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar, Patna, and
the consequential order contained in Memo No. 2095 dated
28.10.2024 issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police,
Begusarai Range, Begusarai, whereby the petitioner has been
held ineligible for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector on
the ground that he suppressed the pendency of a criminal case
against him, and accordingly, his candidature was cancelled.
Further prayer has been made that the respondent may be
directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector
pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2023 in view of his final
selection and exoneration from the alleged criminal case.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner completed his graduation in the year 2020
from Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, and in 2023
the Bihar Police Subordinate Commission invited applications
vide Advertisement No. 02/2023 for selection/appointment to
the post of Police Sub-Inspector. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
applied and, after scrutiny, his application was accepted and an
admit card was issued for the preliminary examination. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
3/22
petitioner qualified the preliminary written examination and was
allowed to participate in the mains examination. He appeared in
the mains examination and qualified the same, and thereafter
appeared in the physical test, which he also qualified. Finally, he
was selected under the Backward Category, wherein his name
appeared at Serial No. 47, and he was allotted Nalanda district.
4. Counsel further submits that during the course of
character verification, it came to light that a criminal case was
pending against the petitioner vide Bakhri P.S. Case No. 134 of
2020, which was under investigation about which the petitioner
disclosed before authority suo moto, but he did not disclose this
fact in his application. Due to such suppression, and on the basis
of the report in this regard, the candidature of the petitioner was
cancelled vide Memo No. 108 dated 24.10.2024 and the
consequential order contained in Memo No. 2095 dated
28.10.2024 issued by the D.I.G., Begusarai Range, Begusarai.
5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner filed a
representation before the D.G.P., Bihar, Patna on 26.11.2024,
but till date no decision has been taken on his representation.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Counsel
further submits that the said F.I.R. was lodged with mala fide
intention. It is further submitted that a mistake was made by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
4/22
petitioner at the time of filing of the application, but as soon as
he realized his mistake, he disclosed the fact before the
authority suo motu at the time of document verification dated
03.08.2024, which shows his bona fides.
6. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a
young person and the offence alleged against him is of a petty
nature, in which he has already been exonerated. Counsel
specifically emphasizes that the last line of the impugned order
indicates that the candidature of the petitioner has been
cancelled on the ground that a criminal case is pending against
him. Counsel further submits that the said impugned letter was
issued on 24.10.2024 and the subsequent letter was issued on
28.10.2024.
7. Counsel further submits that, as per Annexure 11,
which is the order sheet of the Court of C.J.M., Begusarai in
relation to Bakhri P.S. Case No. 134 of 2020, G.R. No. 1048 of
2020, dated 06.09.2024, the final form was accepted on
06.09.2024, and therefore no criminal case was pending against
the petitioner on the dates when the impugned orders dated
24.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 were passed.
8. Counsel further submits that in this aspect of the
matter, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
5/22
liable to be set aside, as the same were passed after closure of
the case.
9. Counsel further relies on the judgment passed by
this Hon’ble Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Singh v. The
State of Bihar & Ors., dated 17.01.2025 in CWJC No. 15943 of
2023, and submits that this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to
allow the aforesaid writ petition in a similarly situated matter
and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner in that
case to the post of Sub-Inspector, for which he had been selected
pursuant to Advertisement published by the Bihar Police
Subordinate Service Commission, after setting aside the
impugned order therein.
10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that the impugned order is completely in
accordance with law. Counsel further submits that it is true that
the petitioner participated pursuant to Advertisement No.
02/2023. It is further submitted that in the said advertisement, it
was categorically mentioned in the application form under
Clause 11 regarding disclosure relating to character, and
subsequently under Clause 19, sub-clause XII.
11. Counsel further submits that Annexure-2 is the
application form filled up by the petitioner on 20.10.2023. From
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
6/22
the acknowledgment slip of the said application form, it appears
that under the declaration relating to criminal cases, where
different headings were provided, the petitioner has entered ‘No’
in all the entries. Counsel submits that such disclosure was
absolutely false, fabricated, and made with intentional
suppression.
12. Counsel further submits that in paragraph no.
10 of the writ petition, the plea of mistake has been taken by the
petitioner, to which respondent no. 5, in paragraph 15 of the
counter affidavit, has categorically replied and denied the same,
stating that it was not a mistake. Rather, during the relevant
period, the petitioner was on bail in the said criminal case, as
has been mentioned by him in the character verification form
itself.
13. Counsel further submits that Clause 19 of the
advertisement specifically provides for cancellation of
candidature, and suppression or non-disclosure of involvement
in a criminal case is one of the grounds for such cancellation.
14. Counsel further relies on two judgments passed
by this Hon’ble Court, firstly in the case of Utpal Kant Prasad
Verma v. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary & Ors.,
reported in 2026 (1) PLJR 324, and Nirmala Kumari v. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
7/22
State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, (Home) Police
Department & Ors., reported in 2026 (1) PLJR 633. Counsel
submits that in both the judgments, this Hon’ble Court has
upheld the cancellation of the candidature of the respective
petitioners by way of dismissal/removal from service on the
ground of suppression of a pending criminal case, which was
found to be false.
15. Accordingly, he submits that, whether in terms
of the conditions of the advertisement, the declaration made in
the application form and acknowledgment slip, or in light of the
aforesaid judgments, the present writ petition is fit to be
dismissed.
16. After hearing the parties and upon going
through the documents and the respective annexures, it
transpires to this Court that, from the acknowledgment of the
application form, all the columns in the declaration relating to
criminal cases indicate ‘No’.
17. For reference, Annexure-2 is hereby scanned
below:
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
8/22
18. In the aforesaid context, Clause 11 of the
Advertisement reads as follows:
“11. चचचकतसीय जाँच, pfj= एवं
पूवरवृत सतयापन-
उपरोकत पदो पर चनयु चकत के पूवर
सभी चयचनत अभयचररयो का चचचकतसकीय
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
9/22
परीकण, pfj= एवं पूवरवृत सतयापन सं बंचधत
चनयु चकत izkf/kdkj दारा यराचवचहत चनयम के
अनु सार कराया जाएगा। izfrdqy izfrosnu izkIr
होने एवं /अरवा अभयचररयो दारा तथयो को
छुपाये जाने की चसरचत मे सं बंचधत अभयरीर
चनयु चकत के चलए अयोगय घोचषत चकये जाएं गे।"
19. In this regard, Clause 19(xii) of the
Advertisement reads as follows:
19. उममीदवारी रदीकरण- आवे दक
की उममीदवारी चकसी भी समय चनमनचलचखत
आधार पर चबना कारण बताये रद की जा सकती
है ः
"19 (xii) आवे दक का चकसी
आपराचधक काणड/गचतचवचध मे सचममचलत पाया
जाना।"
20. This Court, upon perusal of Annexure-11, finds
that the contention made by learned senior counsel is correct to
that extent that, vide order dated 06.09.2024, the criminal case
against the petitioner was dropped. It also transpires from the
impugned order that the final order was passed on 24.10.2024,
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
10/22
and on that date no criminal case was pending against the
petitioner. However, this Court is of the view that if the
petitioner had disclosed the correct facts regarding the criminal
case in the application form, he would not have been permitted
to participate in the examination process.
21. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had no
knowledge of the criminal case at the relevant point of time
when the application was filled up, rather, during that very
period, he was on bail. By suppressing this fact in the
application form, he was allowed to participate in the
preliminary test, the mains examination, and also qualified the
physical test. Subsequently, after successfully clearing all three
stages, he disclosed the same at the time of submission of the
verification form.
22. The judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar
Singh (supra), on which learned senior counsel for the
petitioner has relied, indicates that in that case, at the time of
filing the application form, the petitioner had no knowledge that
a criminal case had been instituted against him, and there was a
gap of only three days between the filing of the criminal case
and submission of the application form.
23. The judgment relied upon by the respondent in
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
11/22
the case of Utpal Kant Prasad Verma (supra), wherein
paragraphs 13 to 22 have been quoted below:-
13. After his appointment, the
petitioner was asked to fill up his character
verification certificate which was sent for
the verification. The petitioner suppressed
the information with respect to pendency of
the criminal case/FIR which came to light in
the verification conducted by the
respondents. The discovery of the pendency
of criminal case lead to the respondents
passing the order of dismissal.
14. Referring to the different
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
stated hereinabove, the petitioner submitted
that non-disclosure of the pendency of the
criminal case was for the reason that the
petitioner was under the impression that
criminal case which was pending at the time
of filling up the Further, the suppression
which was more application form only had
to be disclosed out of fear was not such as to
warrant dismissal from service.
15. In the case of Commissioner
of Police and Others vs. Sandeep Kumar,
(2011)4 SCC 644 [: 2011(2) PLJR (SC)196],
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non-
disclosure of being involved in a criminal
case under Section 325/34 of the Indian
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
12/22
Penal Code was probably out of fear that if
he did so, he would automatically be
disqualified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that it was not such a serious
offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and
hence a more lenient view should be taken in
the matter.
16. In the case of Ram Kumar
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
(2011)14 SCC 709, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that the order dated
18.7.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate had been sent along with the
report dated 15.1.2007 of the concerned
police station to the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Ghaziabad. However, it appeared
that the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ghaziabad has not gone into the question as
to whether the appellant was suitable for
appointment on the post of Constable or not.
He only proceeded on the ground that the
selection of the appellant was illegal and
irregular because he did not furnish in his
affidavit in the proforma of verification roll
that a criminal case has been registered
against him. Challenge by the appellant was
allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it
was directed that the appellant be taken
back in service.
17. In the case of Pramod Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
13/22
Kirar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,
2023(1) PLJR (SC)26, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was dealing with the case of the
appellant who was made accused in a
criminal case under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the incident was of the year
2001 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and which had resulted in acquittal of
the appellant in the year 2006. It was much
later in the year for appointment. The
Hon'ble Supreme 2013/2014 that the
petitioner had applied Court directed the
respondents to appoint otherwise he was
found to be meritorious the appellant on the
post of Constable as and eligible for the said
post.
18. It may be observed here that
Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual
provides for the enlistment orders. The same
is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:-
"(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
14/22
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. On perusal of Rule 673(c), it
would transpire that after having the
necessary entries made in the service book,
the Superintendent of the district has to
order the verification roll to be filed. The
Rules specifically provides that if the
character of the person is reported to be bad
or his statement false, he shall be removed
from the force.
20. From the facts stated herein-
above, it is evident that on verification of the
character certificate of the petitioner, the
statement of the petitioner by way of
suppressing the criminal case pending
against him was discovered to be false and
as such, the petitioner was rightly
dismissed/removed from service. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
15/22
respondents having followed the specific
Rule 673 of the Bihar Police Manual, the
Court finds no illegality in the orders of the
respondents.
21. In the facts of the case, the
judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the petitioner is of no assistance to the
petitioner. The petitioner has not made out
any case for interference in the orders
impugned by this Court. The Court finds no
merit in the instant application.
22. The application is
dismissed.
24. The second judgment relied upon by the
respondent in the case of Nirmala Kumari (supra), wherein
paragraphs 08 to 13 are quoted as follows:-
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 the case of
Avtar Singh (supra), its paragraph no. 30(4)
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
16/22
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
17/22
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."
10. Upon bare reading of the
said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
18/22
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 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,
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
19/22
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 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:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
20/22
"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: (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
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
21/22
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.
25. Here in the present case, so far as the factual
matrix is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that on the date
on which the application form was filled up, the petitioner was
on bail, and even then he filled up the form declaring all entries
relating to the criminal case as ‘No, No and No’, meaning
thereby that he had intentionally suppressed the said fact. It is
only due to this reason that he was permitted to appear in the
preliminary test, mains examination, and physical test, and
thereafter, at the stage of verification, i.e., after clearing all the
three stages, he disclosed that a criminal case was pending
against him.
26. This Court finds that it is true that the order was
passed on 28.10.2024, the day on which no criminal case was
pending against the petitioner. However, this Court is of the
view that the said impugned order has been passed in the light
of Clause 19(xii) of the Advertisement, wherein it has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.126 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
22/22
indicated that the candidature of an applicant is liable to be
cancelled on the ground of involvement in a criminal case,
about which he has made suppression in the original application
form itself.
27. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts,
circumstances and the reasons, this Court finds that there is no
merit in the present case and accordingly, the writ petition is
hereby dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.