Patna HC Upholds Dismissal Of Constable Who Answered ‘No’ About Pending Criminal Case In Verification Form

Nirmala Kumari was selected as a constable and joined service on 1 August 2018.

In a verification form submitted on 5 July 2018, she answered “No” to questions asking whether she had ever been accused in a criminal case and whether any criminal case was pending against her.

At that time, Barbigha P.S. Case No. 245 of 2017, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504/34 of the IPC, was pending against her.

Following a show-cause notice, she was dismissed from service on 17 November 2018; her challenge to the dismissal was unsuccessful before the appellate authority.

The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition.

Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 provides for removal from the force where a recruit’s character is reported to be bad or the recruit’s statement about antecedents is false.

Under Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the employer’s response to suppression depends on the circumstances; paragraph 30(4), concerning cases in which conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before the verification form was filed, does not govern a case where proceedings were still pending at that time.

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136, recognises the employer’s discretion to assess the trustworthiness of a person who makes a false declaration about material antecedents.

In a Letters Patent Appeal, interference with the Single Judge’s findings is exercised with restraint and is warranted where there is a substantial error, perversity or manifest legal infirmity.

The appellant’s answers were categorical, and the criminal case was pending when she completed the form; the Court therefore found that she had concealed material information.

Her later acquittal did not alter the fact that the answers were false when made, and Avtar Singh’s provision concerning a conviction or acquittal already recorded before filing the form was inapplicable.

The Court distinguished State of Bihar v. Sonu Kumar, noting that in that case the appointing authority had issued the appointment and allowed the candidate to join despite the concealment, whereas here the concealment was discovered through verification after appointment.

Applying Rule 673(c) and the cited authorities on disclosure and employer discretion, the Court found no patent illegality, perversity or manifest error in the Single Judge’s decision that warranted appellate intervention.

Finding no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment, the Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and disposed of any pending applications.