Case Background
The appellant was selected and appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police under Advertisement No. 1/2017.
As is routine for police jobs, a verification roll was sent to check his background. When the verification report came back, it showed that he had earlier been made an accused in a criminal case. In that case he had already been acquitted.
On seeing this, the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) concluded that the acquittal was based on compromise and lack of evidence, and therefore could not be treated as an “honourable acquittal”. The DIG also considered that the police force needs persons of “impeccable integrity”. On this basis, the appointment of the appellant was cancelled, referring both to his earlier accusation and to alleged non-disclosure.
The appellant challenged this cancellation before a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court. He argued that the acquittal had happened before his appointment, and that he had not hidden anything in the verification form. He said he had clearly mentioned that he was once an accused in a petty case and had been acquitted.
The learned Single Judge, however, upheld the decision to cancel his appointment, relying on a Supreme Court judgment that stressed the need for high standards of integrity in recruitment to the police force.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A No. 434 of 2023) before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
The appeal was filed with a delay of 111 days. An interlocutory application was moved to condone this delay. The Division Bench, after considering the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application, condoned the delay and allowed I.A. No. 1 of 2023. The appeal was then heard on merits.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, heard arguments from both sides — counsel for the appellant, the State, and the Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission.
The first key fact noted by the Bench was that the appellant had indeed been appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police under Advertisement No. 1/2017 and that his appointment was later cancelled after verification of his antecedents.
The cancellation rested on two linked grounds: that he had been an accused in a criminal case in the past, and that his acquittal was not “honourable” because it was said to be based on compromise and lack of evidence. The DIG treated this as a blemish incompatible with service in the police force and also assumed there was a possibility of him returning to criminal life.
The learned Single Judge had upheld this view by relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a person entering police service must have utmost rectitude and impeccable character, and that persons with criminal antecedents are generally not fit for such posts. The Court in Methu Meda also recognised the employer’s right to look at the nature of acquittal and the risk to discipline in the force.
In the present appeal, the appellant, through senior counsel, made several important submissions:
First, he pointed out that his acquittal had taken place before he was selected in the recruitment process. This meant that by the time he applied and was appointed, there was no pending criminal case against him.
Second, he contended that there was no specific accusation against him in that criminal case. The circumstances suggested a possibility of false identification or false framing. The trial court, finding a lack of evidence and noting compromise among parties regarding specific allegations against others, had acquitted all accused persons.
Third, the appellant stressed that he had not suppressed this past case. In the verification form he had specifically disclosed that he had been made an accused in a criminal case of petty nature and had been acquitted. According to him, the allegation of non-disclosure was therefore factually wrong.
Fourth, he argued that if these facts had been properly appreciated, the learned Single Judge would not have endorsed the DIG’s conclusion that there was a possibility of his “recidivism” (repeating criminal behaviour) making him unfit for the police.
To support his arguments, the appellant relied on a three-judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. The Division Bench reproduced and considered the key portions of paragraph 38 of that judgment, where the Supreme Court laid down detailed principles regarding disclosure of criminal cases and employer’s rights.
The important points from Avtar Singh, as noted by the Patna High Court, include:
Information about conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of a criminal case given to the employer must be true, and there should be no suppression or false mention.
However, when the employer discovers a past case, it can consider special circumstances and applicable rules while deciding whether to terminate or cancel candidature.
Where acquittal has already been recorded in a case involving serious or heinous offences on technical grounds or with benefit of doubt, the employer may still assess the antecedents.
Most crucially for this case, the Supreme Court held that even where an employee truthfully declares a concluded criminal case, the employer still has a right to consider the antecedents and is not compelled to appoint him. But this discretion must be exercised on objective facts.
The Division Bench then applied these principles to the facts before it.
It observed that, in this case, the acquittal had “already been recorded in a case of petty nature” and that this information was “provided in clear terms by the appellant” in the verification form. Therefore, there was no suppression or false statement.
The Bench underlined that while authorities are free to consider the nature of acquittal and accusation, their decision must be based on objective facts — not on pure assumptions.
The DIG’s remark that there was a possibility of recidivism was found to be “only conjectural and based on no solid ground”. The Bench, therefore, did not agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that even if such aspects were not properly taken into account by the authorities while reviewing the verification roll, there could still be no judicial interference.
On the contrary, the Division Bench held that in light of:
the petty nature of the earlier implication,
the lack of any specific accusation against the appellant in that case,
his acquittal, and
the clear disclosure of this information to the appointing authority,
it was not justified to throw him out of service merely on the assumption that he might return to a life of crime.
Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside:
the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and
the decision of the respondent authority cancelling the appellant’s appointment.
The Court directed that the appellant be taken back into service and be provided the requisite training which he might not have completed. The authorities were asked to take a decision in this regard within two months from the date the judgment is produced before them.
The Court also clarified that the appellant would be entitled to all notional benefits as if he had been in employment during the intervening period. Finally, the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for candidates in Bihar and elsewhere who have faced petty criminal cases in the past but have been acquitted and have truthfully disclosed those cases in their forms.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that:
a past petty case, where there is no specific allegation and the person has been acquitted, cannot automatically justify cancelling a police appointment;
employers must base their decisions on solid, objective facts, not on vague fears of future crime;
when a candidate is honest in disclosure, that honesty must be considered fairly.
For police recruitment and other government jobs, this judgment reinforces the balance between maintaining the integrity of the force and protecting the rights of individuals who have been cleared by the criminal court and who have not tried to hide their past.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the appointment of a police recruit be cancelled solely because he was once an accused in a petty criminal case, in which he was acquitted before selection and which he fully disclosed in the verification form?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that in such circumstances, cancellation based only on conjecture about possible future crime, without objective material, is unjustified and liable to be set aside. - Issue: Does the employer’s discretion to assess antecedents override all judicial scrutiny when a candidate has a prior acquittal?
Answer: No. While the employer may consider the nature of acquittal and antecedents, its decision must rest on objective facts. Courts can interfere where the decision is based on mere assumptions and ignores the disclosed, petty nature of the past case.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda; (2022) 1 SCC 1
- Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others; (2016) 8 SCC 471
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 434 of 2023 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3805 of 2021
Case Title: Ravi Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 742
Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Advocates for Appellant: Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate; Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate; Mr. Arya Anand, Advocate; Mr. Brajesh Sahay, Advocate
Advocates for State/Respondents: Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3; Mr. S.K. Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3; Ms. Divya Verma, AC to AAG-3
Advocates for Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission (BPSSC): Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
Date of Judgment: 20-03-2025
Nature of Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging cancellation of police appointment
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM0MzQjMjAyMyMxI04=-cu–am1–nulj0nYY=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
