Case Background
The case arose from the recruitment of constables in Bihar Police. The petitioner was selected as a constable and, according to her, joined service on 01.08.2018 after the selection process.
Before she could start training, the department gave her a verification form, which she filled and submitted on 05.07.2018 to the competent authority. After this, she was sent to B.M.P.-2, Dihri, for training.
While she was in training, the Commandant, B.M.P.-2, Dihri, issued Letter No. 3190 dated 11.10.2018, calling upon her to show cause within seven days. The allegation was that she had suppressed information in the verification form.
Despite her reply, the Commandant passed Police Order No. 1296/2018 dated 17.11.2018, dismissing her from service from the post of constable (Constable No. 143).
Aggrieved, she filed an appeal before the appellate authority. As no decision came, she moved the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5331 of 2019. By order dated 08.04.2019, a learned Single Judge directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police to dispose of her appeal expeditiously, consider all grounds raised by her, and pass a reasoned order within a stipulated time.
Even then, when the order was not passed in time, she filed M.J.C. No. 2330 of 2019. This miscellaneous petition was disposed of by the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021.
Ultimately, the Deputy Inspector General, B.M.P., Kendriya Mandal, Patna, passed Memo No. 620/R.K. dated 15.05.2019, affirming the Commandant’s order of removal from service. This memo became the appellate order.
The petitioner then filed the present writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 1101 of 2022, before the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction. She challenged both the original dismissal order dated 17.11.2018 and the appellate order dated 15.05.2019. She also sought reinstatement with full pay and arrears.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Justice Dr. Anshuman heard the petitioner’s counsel and the State’s counsel and examined the documents and applicable legal rules.
The core question was whether the petitioner had truthfully filled up the verification form, especially about any pending criminal case, and whether her dismissal for alleged suppression was justified.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that she had not deliberately suppressed facts. According to him, the verification form was not clear to her, and due to her limited understanding she filled it up “ignorantly” and not with any intention to mislead.
Counsel submitted that her show-cause reply had not been properly considered before the dismissal order was passed. He further argued that the appellate authority, while deciding the appeal and issuing Memo No. 620/R.K. dated 15.05.2019, had not followed the earlier High Court direction in C.W.J.C. No. 5331 of 2019 to consider all her grounds.
To support the plea, the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Others, decided on 21.07.2016 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20525 of 2011. The petitioner particularly pointed to paragraph 30 of that decision, especially sub-paragraph 30(4).
Paragraph 30(4) of Avtar Singh, as quoted by the Patna High Court, speaks about situations where a candidate suppresses or gives false information about involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal has already been recorded before filing the application or verification form. The Supreme Court listed various possible courses of action for the employer depending on whether the case was trivial, non-trivial, or ended in acquittal on technical grounds.
Based on this, the petitioner argued that her case should have been considered in a similar liberal manner and that the authorities ought to have considered the nature of the case and other circumstances before dismissing her.
On the other side, the State’s counsel pointed to the verification form itself, annexed as Annexure-1. Clauses 7 and 8 of the form, reproduced in the judgment partly in Hindi, were central.
Clause 7 asked whether the applicant had ever been an accused in any criminal (“faujdaari”) or civil (“diwaani”) case or had ever undergone imprisonment. The petitioner’s answer was “No”.
Clause 8 asked whether the applicant was in debt and whether any criminal case or civil suit was pending against him or her. Again, the petitioner’s answer was “No”.
The State argued that, from the petitioner’s own pleadings in the writ petition, it was admitted that on the date of filling the verification form, there was a criminal case pending against her. Therefore, the “No” entries in Clauses 7 and 8 were false.
The State also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Another v. Anil Kanwariya, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136. The State stressed that the employer–employee relationship, especially in a disciplined force like police, is built on trust. When a candidate deliberately suppresses material facts at the entry stage, that trust is broken.
The Patna High Court then examined the relevant rules of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978, especially Rule 673(c). This rule deals with enlistment orders and verification of antecedents.
Under Rule 673(c), once a constable candidate is selected, a verification roll is sent to the Superintendent of the district where the recruit’s home is located. The Superintendent must check whether the recruit bears good character and has made a truthful statement about his or her antecedents. If the character is reported to be bad or the statement is found false, the rule commands that the recruit “shall be removed from the force”.
After looking at the verification form and the rules, the Court found it to be an admitted and clear position that, on the date of filling the form, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Yet she declared in the form that no criminal case was pending. The Court held that this made her statement in the verification form false.
Next, the Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on Avtar Singh. On a “bare reading” of paragraph 30(4), the Court noted that the Supreme Court was dealing with cases where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before the application or verification form was filed.
In the petitioner’s case, however, the situation was different. At the time of filling the verification form, there was a pending criminal case, not a concluded one. The question before the Court was not how to treat a disclosed old conviction or acquittal, but how to treat a false denial of a pending case.
Because of this factual difference, the Patna High Court held that the Avtar Singh decision did not apply to the petitioner’s case and could not help her.
The Court then turned to the judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Another. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of that judgment, quoted in detail, emphasise that the key issue is the credibility and trustworthiness of an employee who, at the initial stage of employment, makes a false declaration or suppresses material facts regarding involvement in a criminal case.
The Supreme Court in that case held that if correct facts had been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed the person at all. In such circumstances, when the employer feels that the employee cannot be trusted even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue that employee in service. The choice whether to continue or not must always rest with the employer.
Paragraph 15 of the same judgment held that the High Court had erred in ordering reinstatement of an employee who had obtained appointment by suppressing material facts and filing a false declaration. The Supreme Court described such reinstatement as “wholly untenable and unjustified”.
The Patna High Court also noted that, in paragraph 8.8 of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Another, the Supreme Court had again discussed Avtar Singh. There the Court clarified that even if a candidate truthfully discloses a concluded case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents and is not bound to appoint such a candidate.
Applying these principles, Justice Dr. Anshuman concluded that the petitioner’s statement in the verification form was false. Under Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual, a recruit whose statement is found false “shall be removed from the force”.
The Court held that, in light of the statutory rule and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and her dismissal from service remained in force.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment sends a clear message to all candidates seeking government jobs, especially in police and other disciplined forces in Bihar.
When a verification form asks about criminal cases, pending or decided, the information given must be completely true. Even if a candidate believes the case is minor, or expects to be acquitted later, they must still disclose it honestly.
The Court has shown that claiming “ignorance” of the form’s language or format will not protect a person who has given a false “No” answer when a criminal case is actually pending.
For government departments, the judgment reinforces their power and duty to act under rules like Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual. If an inquiry shows that a recruit gave false information about their past, they can be removed from service, and courts are unlikely to interfere unless the rules have been clearly violated.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the petitioner’s dismissal from the post of constable for allegedly suppressing information about a pending criminal case in the verification form was lawful.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that the petitioner’s statement in the verification form was false, attracting Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual, and, applying Supreme Court precedents, upheld the dismissal.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India protected the petitioner in this case.
Answer: No. The Court held that Avtar Singh dealt with suppression relating to cases where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded, whereas in this case the criminal case was pending at the time of filling the form; therefore, Avtar Singh did not apply.
Issue: Whether the employer can be compelled to continue in service a recruit who gave a false declaration about criminal involvement at the time of recruitment.
Answer: No. Relying on Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Another v. Anil Kanwariya, the Court held that the relationship is based on trust and the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20525 of 2011, judgment dated 21.07.2016.
- Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Another v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136.
- The judgment also refers to State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733, while quoting paragraph 8.8 of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Another.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1101 of 2022
Case Title: Nirmala Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Others
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 633
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Date of Judgment: 05.01.2026
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
Respondents: State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, (Home) Police Department, Bihar, Patna; Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna; I.G., B.M.P., Bihar, Patna; D.I.G., B.M.P., Kendriya Mandal, Patna; Commandant, B.M.P.-02, Dihri; Superintendent of Police, Sasaram.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging dismissal from service as constable and seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
