Patna High Court
Rekha KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, and costs of Rs.20,000 are imposed on the petitioner for filing a false affidavit.
Summary
Rekha Kumari, a former Assistant Teacher, filed a writ seeking quash of her termination order, validation of her teacher training certificate, and reinstatement with back wages. The State of Bihar contended that she had previously approached the High Court in CWJC No.20772 of 2018, complied with the court's direction to file a representation, and was awarded salary by Office Order Memo No.321 dated 28.01.2019. The State further alleged that the petitioner made a false affidavit in paragraph 29 of the present writ, claiming she had not previously approached the court. The petitioner admitted the false affidavit, tendered an apology, and requested withdrawal of the petition. Relying on Supreme Court precedents condemning false affidavits and emphasizing the need for clean hands in writ proceedings, the Court dismissed the writ as withdrawn and imposed costs of Rs.20,000 to be deposited within fifteen days. The order underscores the court's discretion to dismiss petitions filed with false statements and to levy costs as a deterrent.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed on account of the petitioner’s false affidavit and prior litigation.
- Whether costs may be imposed on a petitioner who has filed a false affidavit in a writ proceeding.
Subjects
- false affidavit
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- costs
- dismissal
- clean hands
- education service termination
- reinstatement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3943 of 2025
======================================================
Rekha Kumari Wife of Suresh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Majilishpur
Alipur Hatta, P.S.- Mahnar, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. The Block Education Officer, Lalganj, District- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader-12
Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to GP-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the respondents-State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has
prayed for the grant of following relief:
“i. For issuance of Writ/Writs,
Order/Order, Direction/Directions in the nature
of certiorari for quashing the Office Order
contained in Letter No. 3688 dated 09.06.2015
issued by the District Education Officer,
Vaishali, whereby and whereunder the petitioner
has been terminated from the service as an
Assistant Teacher in a very arbitrary and
cavalier manner and accordingly the
petitioner's teacher training certificate of Lord
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/10
Buddha Mission Primary Teachers Training
College has been kept in the list of unrecognized
institution which is patently illegal and
arbitrary in the eyes of law.
ii. It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and
adjudicate that the certificate of petitioner is
valid and genuine and thus her appointment was
made vide Memo No. 747 dated 09.02.2012 on
the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the
direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court from the
approved list of the Trained Teaches.
iii. It is further prayed to this Hon'ble
Court that since similarly situated persons like
the petitioner have already been reinstated in
service with all consequential benefits in light of
Order dated 28.08.2023 passed in L.P.A. No.
707 of 2016 and accordingly they have been
given salary from the date of their termination
order till the date of their superannuation, thus
in view of Clause 4(C) of Bihar Litigation
Policy, 2011 similar benefits may be given to the
petitioner also.
iv. It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other
reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled and
an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders or
direction/directions may be issued under the
given facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State submits that for seeking the same relief the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide CWJC
No.20772 of 2018 and the said writ application was disposed of
by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2018 granting liberty to the
petitioner to file representation before the respondent
authorities. In terms of the said direction given by this Court in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
3/10
CWJC No.20772 of 2018 the petitioner filed a representation
which was duly considered and appropriate order was passed
vide Office Order (Memo No.321 dated 28.01.2019). A detail
statement to this effect has been made by respondent-State in
paragraph-11 and 12 of its counter affidavit, which is quoted
herein below for needful:
“11. That, it is further humbly
submitted that the aforesaid termination was
initially challenged by the petitioner before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter before
this Hon'ble High Court by way of CWJC No.
20772 of 2018, wherein the petitioner sought
reinstatement along with payment of salary for
the period during which she had worked. The
said writ petition was disposed of by this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 31.10.2018,
wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to
observe and direct as under:-
The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioners
would be satisfied in case she is granted
liberty to file representation before the
respondent no. 3 and the respondent no.
3 may be directed to dispose off the
representation of the petitioner within a
specified time frame.
Accordingly, it is directed that
the petitioner shall file a representation
before the respondent no. 3 regarding
her grievances raised in the writ petition
within a period of four weeks from
today and the respondent no. 3 is
directed to dispose off the same within a
period of eight weeks thereafter.
The present writ petition is
disposed off on the aforesaid terms.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
4/10
12. That, it is pertinent to mention
that the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 20772 of 2018 was
duly complied with in its true letter and spirit. In
compliance thereof, the petitioner's
representation was considered, and vide Office
Order (Memo No. 321) dated 28.01.2019, she
was granted salary for the period during which
she had actually rendered service, as claimed in
her representation pursuant to the said order of
this Hon'ble Court.
The photocopy of the memo no.
321, dated 28.01.2019 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure-
R/3 to this Counter Affidavit.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-State
further submits that a false affidavit has been sworn by the
petitioner in paragraph-29 of the writ application, in which it
has been stated as follows:
“29. That the petitioner has not moved
before this Hon’ble Court earlier for the
reliefs sought for in Para-1 of this writ
application.”
5. He, therefore, submits that the present writ
application should be dismissed with heavy cost for making
false declaration in paragraph-29 of the writ application.
6. When the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner was confronted with the above situation, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not within his
knowledge that the petitioner (his client) had approached this
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
5/10
Court earlier for the same relief and that is why such a
disclosure was not given in the writ application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
accepts the fact that the petitioner (his client) has given false
affidavit by stating in paragraph-29 of the writ application that
the petitioner had not moved before this Court earlier for the
relief sought for in paragraph-1 of this writ application. Learned
counsel for the petitioner, therefore, tenders apology and prays
for withdrawing this case.
8. From the submissions made by both the parties, it is
clear that the petitioner has indulged in giving a false affidavit in
paragraph-29 of the writ application.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S
Sciemed Overseas Inc vs Boc India Limited & Ors. reported in
(2016) 3 SCC 70 had the occasion to examine this issue and
observed as follows:
“2. A global search of cases
pertaining to the filing of a false affidavit
indicates that the number of such cases that
are reported has shown an alarming increase
in the last fifteen years as compared to the
number of such cases prior to that. This is
illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but
surely creeping in. This “trend” is certainly
an unhealthy one that should be strongly
discouraged, well before the filing of false
affidavits gets to be treated as a routine and
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
6/10
normal affair.
28. In Suo Motu Proceedings
against R. Karuppan, Advocate, In re [Suo
Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan,
Advocate, In re, (2001) 5 SCC 289 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 876] this Court had observed that
the sanctity of affidavits filed by parties has
to be preserved and protected and at the
same time the filing of irresponsible
statements without any regard to accuracy
has to be discouraged. It was observed by
this Court as follows : (SCC p. 293, para 13)
“13. Courts are
entrusted with the powers of
dispensation and adjudication of
justice of the rival claims of the
parties besides determining the
criminal liability of the
offenders for offences
committed against the society.
The courts are further expected
to do justice quickly and
impartially not being biased by
any extraneous considerations.
Justice dispensation system
would be wrecked if statutory
restrictions are not imposed
upon the litigants, who attempt
to mislead the court by filing
and relying upon false evidence
particularly in cases, the
adjudication of which is
dependent upon the statement of
facts. If the result of the
proceedings are to be respected,
these issues before the courts
must be resolved to the extent
possible in accordance with the
truth. The purity of proceedings
of the court cannot be permitted
to be sullied by a party on
frivolous, vexatious or
insufficient grounds or relying
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
7/10
upon false evidence inspired by
extraneous considerations or
revengeful desire to harass or
spite his opponent. Sanctity of
the affidavits has to be
preserved and protected
discouraging the filing of
irresponsible statements,
without any regard to accuracy.”
29. Similarly, in Muthu Karuppan
v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi [Muthu Karuppan v.
Parithi Ilamvazhuthi, (2011) 5 SCC 496 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 709] this Court
expressed the view that the filing of a false
affidavit should be effectively curbed with a
strong hand. It is true that the observation
was made in the context of contempt of court
proceedings, but the view expressed must be
generally endorsed to preserve the purity of
judicial proceedings. This is what was said :
(SCC p. 501, para 15)
“15. Giving false evidence
by filing false affidavit is an evil
which must be effectively curbed with
a strong hand. Prosecution should be
ordered when it is considered
expedient in the interest of justice to
punish the delinquent, but there must
be a prima facie case of ‘deliberate
falsehood’ on a matter of substance
and the court should be satisfied that
there is a reasonable foundation for the
charge.”
30. On the material before us and
the material considered by the High Court,
we are satisfied that the imposition of costs
by the High Court was justified. We find no
reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order [BOC India Ltd. v. State
of Jharkhand, 2008 SCC OnLine Jhar 279 :
(2009) 1 AIR Jhar R 26] . The petition is
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
8/10
dismissed.
31. However, we grant six weeks'
time to the petitioner to make the deposit of
costs as directed by the High Court with the
Jharkhand Legal Services Authority (Jhalsa).
On the deposit being made, Jhalsa should
forward the amount to BOC India. The
matter should be listed in the High Court
after eight weeks for compliance.”
10. Also in the case of Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P.
& Ors. Reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had the occasion to examine the issue of giving false
affidavit and in paragraph-7 & 10 held and observed as follows:
“7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [(2007)
8 SCC 449] it was held that in exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the
High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a
court of equity and a person who invokes the High
Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts
before the Court without any reservation. If there is
suppression of material facts or twisted facts have
been placed before the High Court then it will be
fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This
Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in
R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners
[(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA)] , and observed: (Prestige
Lights Ltd. case [(2007) 8 SCC 449] , SCC p. 462,
para 35)
In exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always
keep in mind the conduct of the party who is
invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
9/10
disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials
or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, then
the Court may dismiss the action without
adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has
been evolved in larger public interest to deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of
court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ
jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and
correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly
stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very
functioning of the writ courts would become
impossible.
10. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12
SCC 481] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is
imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ
court must come with clean hands and put forward
all the facts before the Court without concealing or
suppressing anything and seek an appropriate
relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant
and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of
misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed
at the threshold without considering the merits of
the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G.
Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel [(2009) 3 SCC
141].”
11. In light of these facts and circumstances, the
present writ application is permitted to be dismissed as
withdrawn with a cost of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner, which
must be deposited within fifteen days with the Bihar State Legal
Services Authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3943 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2026
10/10
12. Writ application is accordingly dismissed as
withdrawn. If the cost is not deposited within time, this matter
should be listed under the heading ‘To be mentioned” for
securing compliance.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U
Checking your session…