Nirmala Kumari vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.197 of 2026
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1101 of 2022
CNR No. BRHC010248302026
======================================================
Nirmala Kumari Daughter of Shri Mehar Chand Das, Resident of Village-
Below, P.S- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura.
... ... Appellant/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 Appellant/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, GA 8
Mr. Sanoj Kumar, AC to G.A.8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-11-2026
This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to an order
dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ
petition filed by the appellant herein being C.W.J.C. No. 1101 of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
2/22
2022, challenging the order dated 15.05.2019 whereby the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. The challenge
in the petition by the appellant was to her dismissal from service
as Constable No.143 resulting in the dismissal of the writ
petition.
2. The facts to be noted for the purpose of this appeal
are, the appellant herein was selected on the post of Constable
on which she joined on 01.08.2018. Before undergoing the
training process, she was given a verification form to be filled
by her. She filled the same and submitted to the authority
concerned on 05.07.2018. Pursuant thereto, she received a show
cause notice dated 11.10.2018 stating therein that she made a
suppression in the said verification form, about pendency of a
criminal case against her.
3. The defence of the appellant was that she filled up
the verification form ignorantly and not deliberately. It was also
stated that the format of the verification form was not clear and
for that reason, she filled up the form in such a manner. The
show cause notice resulted in her dismissal from service vide
order dated 17.11.2018. The appeal filed therefrom before the
Appellate Authority had resulted in rejection making the
appellant file a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
3/22
No. 5331 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated
08.04.2019 directing the Deputy Inspector General of Police to
dispose of the appeal of the appellant as expeditiously as
possible by taking into consideration all the grounds urged by
the appellant in the appeal in accordance with law.
4. Suffice it to state as no order was passed the,
appellant preferred M.J.C. No. 2330 of 2019, which was
disposed of by the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021.
5. Finally, the appellate order was passed on
15.05.2019.
6. The counsel for the appellant had relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India & Ors. in SLP (c) No.20525 of 2011 more
specifically, Paragraph No. 30(4), wherein according to the
counsel, there is a categorical finding that in case, there is
suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal
case but where conviction or acquittal had already been
recorded before filing of the application/verification form and
such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, it is not
necessary dismissal must follow.
7. The case of the appellant was also that despite order
of this Court, none of the grounds as urged by the appellant

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
4/22
were taken into consideration before passing of the order dated
15.05.2019.
8. The case of the respondents before the learned Single
Judge was that the appellant had against query no. 7 of the
verification form as to whether the appellant has ever been
accused in a criminal or a civil case or has ever been sent to jail
stated as categorical ‘No’. It was also stated that against query
no. 8 whether the appellant is in debt or whether any criminal
case or civil suit is pending against her, the answer was also
‘No’.
9. The learned Single Judge apart from referring to
Avtar Singh (supra) has also referred to the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC
136, wherein it is held that the relationship between the
employer and employee is of trust.
10. We note that the learned Single Judge has in
Paragraph No.7 onwards held as under:
“7. In the light of the submissions
made, this Court as 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

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
5/22
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 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
employer, any of the following
recourse appropriate to the case may
be adopted:-

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
6/22
(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 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."
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

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
7/22
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, 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.
In view of aforestated facts and
circumstances of the case, both, the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
8/22
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 judgement of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited Anr. (supra), the said
decision of Avtar Singh (supra) has 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 : (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 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

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
9/22
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.”
11. The submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant are primarily the same as were urged before the
learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant has
also submitted that the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Sheikhpura has
finally cleared and acquitted the appellant from all the criminal
charges on, 24.12.2024 and the said fact was/is a relevant
consideration for the learned Single Judge to consider whether
in the facts of the case, only on the ground of concealment the
dismissal from service can take place.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant apart from
relying upon the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra)
had also relied upon seven other following citations : 2024(5)
SCC 264 (Ravindra Kumar Vrs. State of U.P.), 2016(8) SCC
471 (Avtar Singh Vrs. Union of India & Ors.), 2024(1)SCC
175 (Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), 2021(10)
SCC 136 (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. &
Anr. Vrs. Anil Kanwariya), 1976(1) SCC 560 (Dilip Kumar
Sharma & Ors. Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026(3) BLJ

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
10/22
180 (State of Bihar Vrs. Sonu Kumar) and 2025(2)BLJ 38
(Sonu Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.), in support of his
contentions.
13. The only issue which arises for consideration is
whether the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the
writ petition filed by the appellant against her dismissal from
service. There is no dispute in so far as the manner in which the
appellant had filled the verification form. The same has been
noted by the learned Single Judge in the following manner:
“"
क्यया आवदक कभभी ददांडडिक "फफौजदयारभी" यया डसिडवल
"दभीवयानभी" मयामलव में अडभयुक्त रहया ह अथवया कभभी
कयारयावयासि भयुगत चयुकभी ह ? डववरण दमें।
नहहीं ।
क्यया आवदक ऋणग्रस्त ह और उसिकव डवरूद्ध ककोई
ददांडडिक "फफौजदयारभी" यया डसिडवल "दभीवयानभी" मयामलया
डवचयारयाधभीन ह?
नहहीं ।"
14. The aforesaid answer would clearly reveal that a
positive statement has been made by the appellant that she has
never been accused in a criminal or civil case or has ever been
sent to jail. It is also clear that on a query, whether any criminal
case or civil suit is pending against her the answer is
categorically ‘No’. The same would reveal that the appellant did

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
11/22
conceal the case pending against her bearing F.I.R. No.
Barbigha P.S. Case No. 245 of 2017 dated 20.05.2017 under
Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. The law in this regard is well settled. The learned
Single Judge has referred to the judgments in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra) and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited & Anr. , (supra).
16. What is important is that the Rules 365 and 673 of
the Bihar Police Mannual, 1978 more specifically 673(c) of
which reference is made by the learned Single Judge in
paragraph nos. 7 & 8 has significant bearing on the case/issue.
We reproduce Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment as under:
“7. In the light of the submissions made,
this Court as 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 has

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
12/22
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.”
17. In the case in hand, the suppression was not,
after the acquittal has already been recorded but during the
pendency of the case still, it was stated ‘No’. The learned Single
Judge has distinguished the judgement in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra). He has referred to the judgment of Rajasthan
Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr., (supra) in
Paragraph Nos. 14 and 15, which we reproduced as under:
"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

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
13/22
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, 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 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."
18. The learned counsel for the appellant has heavily
relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the State of Bihar Vrs. Sonu Kumar passed in LPA No. 741

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
14/22
of 2025 in C.W.J.C. No. 6827 of 2023 wherein this Court upon
considering various judgments including on the scope of intra
court appeal has not interfered with the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the
petition in favour of the respondent therein.
19. We have seen the judgment in the case of State of
Bihar Vrs. Sonu Kumar (supra). The Division Bench of this
Court has noted the fact that despite concealment in the
verification form, the appointing authority proceeded to issue
appointment letter in favour of the respondent therein and
permitted her to join the service. The respondent was acquitted
in the criminal case by a competent Criminal Court. The Court
held the penalty of dismissal solely on concealment is not called
for. Surely, the said judgment is distinguishable inasmuch as in
the case in hand, the appointment was made before the appellant
had filled the verification form wherein she has concealed the
material facts. It is only upon inquiries pursuant to the filling of
the verification form, the factum of the criminal case had come
to the knowledge of the respondents which resulted in her
dismissal from service.
20. What is also relevant is, as relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents is the judgment of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
15/22
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. Vrs.
Dinesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2026 , wherein the
Court has in Paragraph Nos. 6 to 9 has held as under:
“6. Proper and complete disclosure in
applications for government employment is not a simple
procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in
fairness, integrity, and public trust. Government posts
attract hundreds, and often thousands, of applicants for
a single vacancy, each competing under the same stated
conditions, scrupulous vetting of every candidate
becomes imperative and essential to ensure a level
playing field and to protect the credibility of the selection
process. When an applicant withholds information about
criminal antecedents, it undermines this process by
depriving the appointing authority of the opportunity to
make a fully informed assessment of suitability. While the
law recognizes that non-disclosure, depending on the
nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances,
may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it
nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is
significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is
repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and
instead reflects deliberate concealment. Such strikes at
the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service,
where honesty and transparency are indispensable
attributes, and justify a far stricter view by the
authorities.
7. We notice that both, the attestation form as
also the verification form extracted hereunder, furnish a
disclaimer in the following terms:
"1. Giving any false information in
this application or concealing any material
information will be treated as disqualification
and may render the candidate unfit for
Government service."
... ... ...”Disclaimer
2. Furnishing of false information
in the verification form or suppression of any
material information will be punishable and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
16/22
the candidate will be ineligible for
employment under the Government. After
completing and submitting this form, if the
candidate is detained, arrested or convicted of
any illegal act, find, deported or acquitted of a
crime etc., the same should be immediately
sent to the authority to whom the verification
form was submitted earlier, failing which it
will be treated as suppression of material
information.
3. If, any person is found to have
concealed any factual information or
submitted in correct information in the
verification for at any time during his service
period, his tenure is liable to be terminated.
... ...
... ”
8. Despite this clear stipulation as
extracted supra the respondent submitted otherwise
than the truth which was that there were cases
pending against him. The acquittal/dropping of
proceedings against him were subsequent
developments and at the time of filling up of the
forms the investigation in the case was active so also
at the time of the affidavit. Since the disclaimer
makes it clear that concealment of information
would render the applicant ineligible/unfit for
government service, what is the clincher is the status
of the cases as disclosed at the time of filing of the
forms. It cannot be disputed that at the relevant time,
he submitted incorrect and false information.
9. In urging this Court to look at
circumstances in his favour in accordance with Avtar
Singh v Union of India. (2016) 8 SCC 471 and
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 5.SCC 264
he points out inter-alia his age which is
approximately 45, the fact that he gave the affidavit
prior to initiation of cancellation of appointment
proceedings, the District Magistrate has placed on
record his fitness for appointment. We are of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
17/22
considered view that none of these factors would
justify overlooking the fact that at the relevant point
in time he concealed the information. There is a
maxim in law to the effect that 'juda lex sed lex'
which means the law may be harsh, but the law is
law. The factum that he said 'no' to pending
proceedings against him not once but twice, shows
demonstrated mal-intent and is in direct
contravention of the disclaimer(s) given in the forms.
Subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to
come clean about the suppression of facts cannot
accrue to his benefit.”
21. It is noted from the aforesaid judgment of the
Supreme Court that the Court held complete disclosure in the
application for Government employment is not a simple
procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness,
integrity and public trust. The Supreme Court also held while
the law recognizes that non-disclosure, depending on the nature
of offence and surrounding circumstances, may not be
invariably fatal to a candidature, it nevertheless remains a
serious lapse. It also held that the gravity is significantly
compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to
be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate
concealment.
22. That apart, the Supreme Court had also noted the
consequence of furnishing false information, which is similar to
the provision of 573(c) noted by the learned Single Judge in the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
18/22
case in hand.
23. The aforesaid judgment is clearly applicable to
the facts of this case. Similarly in the case of Yogeeta Chandra
Vrs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in SLP (Civil)
Nos.4860-4861/2019 , the Supreme Court has in Paragraph Nos.
6 to 8 held as under:
“6. In the application form, the
applicant, who, as such, applied for the
post of a judicial officer was required to
disclose certain facts, more particularly,
the facts stated in Clause 18 of the
Application Form and non-disclosure of
true facts and not only that but saying "No"
can certainly be said to be suppression of
material facts. It was immaterial whether
there was a closure report or acquittal or
conviction. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that the particulars which were
asked, whether "did you ever figure as an
accused or a complainant in any criminal
case? If so, give particulars with result.
Therefore, the facturn of figuring the name
either as an accused or a complainant in
any criminal case was required to be
disclosed with full particulars and with
result. Therefore, the appellant cannot take
the plea and/or defence that as a Closure
Report was filed in the complaint in which
she was the accused, the same was not
required to be disclosed. On the basis of
the nature of the allegations in the
complaint either as an accused or a
complainant, it is ultimately for the
employer to take a conscious decision

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
19/22
whether to appoint such a person or not.
What could be considered while actually
appointing a person depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case and it is
ultimately for the employer to take a
conscious decision. The post which was
applied by the appellant was a very
important post of judicial officer and
therefore, it was expected of a person who
applied for the judicial officer to disclose
the true and correct facts and give full
particulars as asked in the application
form. If in the application form itself, she
has not stated the true and correct facts
and suppressed the material facts, what
further things can be expected from her
after she was appointed as a judicial
officer.
7. From the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, it
appears that it was the case on behalf of
the appellant that the services of the
appellant could not be put to an end
without holding the departmental enquiry
under Article 311 of the Constitution of
India. However, it is required to be noted
that the termination was not on the ground
of any misconduct. It was the case of
cancellation of the appointment on not
disclosing the true and correct facts in the
application form. Therefore, as rightly
observed by the High Court, there was no
question of holding any departmental
enquiry under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India.
8. Under the circumstances, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, no
error has been committed by the High
Court cancelling her appointment on the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
20/22
ground of not stating the true and correct
facts and/or suppression of material facts.
We are in complete agreement with the
view taken by the High Court. No
interference of this Court is called for”
24. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Surely, the scope of
interference in the Letters Patent Appeal as held by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Sonu
Kumar (supra) is very limited that too, primarily corrective in
nature and interference is warranted only when the judgment of
the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity
or manifest error of law.
25. At this stage, reference be made to B.
Venkatamuni Vs. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors. In (2006)
13 Supreme Court Cases 449 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
“18. ... ... In an intra-court
appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly may
be entitled to apprise both questions of fact
and law, but the following dicta of this Court
in Umabai & Anr. vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba
Chavan (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. [(2005) 6 SCC
243], could not have been ignored by it,
whereupon the learned counsel for
Respondents relied:-
"It may be, as has been held in
Asha Devi vs. Dukhi Sao, (1974) 2 SCC 492
that the power of the appellate court in intra-
court appeal is not exactly the same as

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
21/22
contained in Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure but it is also well known that
entertainment of a letters patent appeal is
discretionary and normally the Division
Bench would not, unless there exist cogent
reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived
at by the learned Single Judge. Even as
noticed hereinbefore, a court of first appeal
which is the final court of appeal on fact may
have to exercise some amount of restraint."
26. From the above, it is clear that unless the
conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable and suffers from
legal infirmity, the Appellate Court would refrain from
interfering with the findings so recorded.
27. It also follows the power has to be exercised with
restraint keeping in mind that the purpose of such jurisdiction is
to correct errors which are apparent and substantial and not to
undertake a fresh appreciation of the entire matter.
28. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has
also relied upon other judgments which we have noted above
but having considered the latest position of law on the issue in
question, we are of the view that the conclusion drawn by the
learned Single Judge in the facts of the case more specifically
keeping in view the Bihar Police Manual Clause 573(c) which
clearly contemplates the consequence of furnishing false
information, we hold there is no error nor it is a case of perverse

Patna High Court L.P.A No.197 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
22/22
finding, which calls for interference with the impugned
judgment.
29. Accordingly, the Letter Patent Appeal filed by the
appellant is dismissed.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J) : I agree.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 29.09.2026
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date NA