Bhim Sen Yadav v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

22.12.2011 and its affirmance by the appellate authority in its order dated 23.01.2012, is bad both on fact and in law, inasmuch as, the authorities have failed to take into account that the petitioner had not deliberately withheld information with regard to Patna High Court CWJC No.3084 of 2013 (2) dt.18-02-2013 2 his being accused in a criminal case at the time of his filing of application for appointment on the post of Constable in Bihar Police. He has also submitted that the aforementioned criminal case in fact has already been now quashed.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner at the time of his appointment in Bihar Police was required to disclose as with regard to the pendency of any criminal case against him, inasmuch as, in the prescribed proforma of the application, column no.13 had specially sought to elicit an information from the candidate as to whether he was facing any criminal prosecution or general punishment by the court or even any case was under police investigating. Admittedly, the petitioner had filled up the column by putting word “No” (^^ugha**) and thus, had made the authority to believe that there was no criminal prosecution pending against him. In fact to that extent, when the petitioner had made such suppression of fact with regard to pendency of criminal case, he had also become liable for being removed from service because the same application had also contained the declaration to be given by the candidate that all the information given in the application was correct and if any of such of the information given by him was found to be false or incomplete, his selection and appointment could be cancelled. Patna High Court CWJC No.3084 of 2013 (2) dt.18-02-2013 3 Thus this Court does not find any error in the impugned order removing the petitioner from service of Police Force on the ground of giving false declaration.

5. The admitted facts would even otherwise bear it out that the petitioner’s appointment in fact on 7.1.2011 had been made on the post of Constable in anticipation of the submission of verification report and in course of verification of criminal antecedent of the petitioner it had transpired that there were three criminal cases pending against him, namely, NCR Case No. 183 of 2005 for offence under Section 323/504/506, C. Case No. 41 of 2006 for offence under Section 323/504/506 and C. Case No. 35 of 2005 for offence under Section 419/420/467/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. This aspect of the matter was further gone into in the departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner and the only plea of the petitioner by way of his defence was that he had no information about the pendency of these three cases was disbelieved. The Enquiry Officer, after examining the defence of the petitioner as also his plea that since his brother had filed application for anticipatory bail as also had filed the quashing application in Allahabad High Court and the resultant claim of the petitioner that he had no knowledge of pendency of such criminal Patna High Court CWJC No.3084 of 2013 (2) dt.18-02-2013 4 cases against him had found them untenable on the basis of the evidence adduced by the department including a report of criminal antecedent showing pendency of three cases submitted by the Gola Police Station of Gorakhpur as also the report of the Deputy Inspector General, Gorakhpur dated 10.6.2011. The Enquiry Officer had accordingly held the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him.

7. It is also not in doubt that a copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner and he had also given his comment/reaction the enquiry report, whereafter, Commandant, B.M.P. had passed impugned order on

22.12.2011.

8. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed an appeal and the appellate authority also had considered the matter objectively and had also rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service on the ground that on 4.4.2011, he had been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal cases. In this regard, the findings recorded by the appellate authority was that the petitioner’s appointment was made on 7.1.2011 on the basis of his false declaration and, therefore, his subsequent acquittal could not change the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. The same view in fact has also been taken by the Director General of Police while rejecting the Patna High Court CWJC No.3084 of 2013 (2) dt.18-02-2013 5 memorial of the petitioner on 7.8.2012 vide Annexure-1 to the writ application.

9. As noted above, the petitioner does not complain of any procedural error in course of departmental proceeding. In fact, there is a finding of fact recorded by all the authorities that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself in a departmental proceeding and his plea of ignorance of the three criminal cases could not be proved by him. In view of the fact that there is no complaint of the petitioner even in this writ application as with regard to any procedural infirmity in course of departmental proceeding, this Court will have no option but to hold that the impugned orders passed by the authorities does not suffer from any procedural error.

10. In fact, even when the petitioner has not even assailed the order of punishment dated 22.12.2001 and the appellate order dated 23.01.2012 and has only assailed the order of the Director General of Police dated 7.8.2012 this Court, having closely perused the memo of charge, enquiry report and the three orders of the authorities, is fully satisfied that the petitioner did not deserve to be retained in police service wherein one of the basic requirement is that a person at the time of appointment must not be an accused in a criminal case. In the present case, the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.3084 of 2013 (2) dt.18-02-2013 6 was an accused not in one case but in three cases and yet he had suppressed this fact while filling up his application form by giving a false information in Column No.13. It is this false information which could be discovered in course of verification of his antecedent and, therefore, the petitioner is bound by his own undertaking given in the same application that if any information given by him in the application seeking appointment on the post of Constable was found to be false, he would become liable for being removed from service.

11. The respondents, therefore, could not have allowed the petitioner to continue in service and in fact, if the petitioner could remain in service in police department from

7.1.2011 to 22.12.2011, it was because the authorities were following the prescribed procedure of holding departmental enquiry which was initiated against him on receipt of the report of criminal antecedent of the petitioner in course of verification of the report dated 10.6.2011 and completing of the departmental proceeding after framing of charge.

12. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioner is not an illiterate person and in fact is ex-army personnel and, therefore, he was also well aware of the implication of giving false declaration. A special recruitment of the petitioner on the basis of Patna High Court CWJC No.3084 of 2013 (2) dt.18-02-2013 7 his being an army personnel by suppressing his track of criminal record therefore by itself will be sufficient to hold that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service of the Police Department.

13. Thus, having given an anxious consideration, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Director General of Police or for that purpose in the order of the Commandant and the appellate order passed by the D.I.G. B.M.P.

14. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rishi/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)