Intentional Suppression of Pending Criminal Case in Application Form Justifies Cancellation of Police Candidature Despite Subsequent Exoneration

The petitioner applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector under Advertisement No. 02/2023. In his application submitted on 20.10.2023, he marked ‘No’ in all columns regarding involvement in criminal cases.

He successfully cleared the preliminary, mains, and physical examinations.

During character verification on 03.08.2024, it was discovered that Bakhri P.S. Case No. 134 of 2020 was pending against him, an investigation in which he was already out on bail at the time of application.

Although the criminal case was subsequently dropped on 06.09.2024, the appointing authority cancelled his candidature via orders dated 24.10.2024 and 28.10.2024 on grounds of suppression of material facts.

1. Whether the suppression of a pending criminal case in the initial application form justifies the cancellation of candidature even if the candidate is later exonerated before the appointment order is issued.

2. Whether a candidate can claim a "mistake" or "bona fide disclosure" at the stage of document verification to cure intentional non-disclosure in the application stage.

Clause 11 and Clause 19(xii) of Advertisement No. 02/2023, which stipulate that suppression of facts or involvement in criminal activities leads to disqualification.

Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual permits removal if a statement is found false, affirmed in Utpal Kant Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [2026 (1) PLJR 324] and Nirmala Kumari v. State of Bihar [2026 (1) PLJR 633].

The Supreme Court precedents, including Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anr., establishing that the employer’s trust is paramount and the right to consider antecedents remains even after acquittal.

The court reasoned that the petitioner had full knowledge of the criminal case (Bakhri P.S. Case No. 134 of 2020) because he was already out on bail when he filled out the application form.

By marking ‘No’ in the declaration, the petitioner practiced intentional suppression to ensure entry into the examination process; had he disclosed the truth, he might not have been permitted to participate.

The court distinguished the petitioner's cited precedent, Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, noting that in that case, the candidate lacked knowledge of the FIR due to a minimal time gap.

The court emphasized that even though the case was dropped before the final impugned order, the act of suppression at the "initial stage" violated the terms of the advertisement and undermined the "credibility and trustworthiness" required for a uniform service.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Appointing Authority cancelling the candidature were upheld.