A trivial conviction carrying only a fine cannot, by itself, justify rejecting a character certificate.

The petitioner’s application for issuance of a character certificate was rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, on the basis of an adverse police report concerning Islampur P.S. Case No. 383 of 2019, registered under Section 37(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The allegation was that the petitioner had been found in an intoxicated condition. He accepted the accusation and deposited a fine of ₹2,000, following which the Excise Court, Hilsa, Nalanda, passed an order dated 22 July 2026.

The petitioner asserted that, apart from this incident, he had no adverse antecedents or incriminating conduct.

He had been selected and provisionally empanelled for appointment as a Multi-Tasking Staff member in the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited, but was unable to secure appointment in the absence of a character certificate.

The State defended the rejection on the ground that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and paid the fine.

1. Whether the petitioner’s character certificate could be rejected solely on the basis of his involvement in a 2019 intoxication-related case, which had culminated in payment of a fine, despite the absence of any other adverse antecedents?

2. Whether such mechanical rejection was inconsistent with the requirement that antecedent verification must be based on objective consideration of the candidate’s overall suitability and conduct?

3. Whether the matter required reconsideration by the Superintendent of Police after taking into account the trivial nature and circumstances of the earlier offence?

The Court applied Section 37(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, under which the petitioner’s earlier conduct had resulted in criminal proceedings and payment of a fine.

It held that verification of character and antecedents is a legitimate and important criterion for assessing a person’s suitability for appointment, but the decision must be based on objective consideration of all relevant circumstances rather than on a mechanical reliance upon a past case.

The Court further applied the constitutional principles under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, observing that outright denial of consideration for appointment in cases involving trivial offences or imposition of a fine may be arbitrary and inconsistent with the constitutional goal of providing an opportunity for reformation, particularly to young offenders.

In appropriate cases, the authority may mention the past incident in the character certificate, but should not automatically refuse to issue the certificate.

The Court accepted that the State is entitled to verify a candidate’s antecedents and assess his suitability for employment.

However, the petitioner’s only adverse antecedent was a 2019 incident involving intoxication, for which he had paid a fine of ₹2,000, and there had been no subsequent adverse report against him.

Treating that isolated and relatively minor incident as an absolute bar to issuance of a character certificate failed to account for the petitioner’s overall conduct, the passage of time, the nature of the offence and the possibility of reformation.

The rejection was therefore found to be mechanical and legally unsustainable.

The Court concluded that a fresh, objective consideration was necessary rather than an outright refusal based solely on the earlier case.

The matter was remitted to the Superintendent of Police for fresh consideration, with liberty to obtain a fresh report from the concerned Station House Officer.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh application within two weeks along with a copy of the judgment.

The Court directed that, if there was no impediment other than the petitioner’s involvement in the earlier case, the character certificate should be issued in his favour.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed preferably within six weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.