Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Sonu Kumar on 11 March, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.741 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6827 of 2023
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar Through the Director General of Police, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police, (Budget, Appeal and Welfare),
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.
6. The Deputy Superintendent Police, Samastipur.
7. The Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission, Through the Secretary,
Santosh Mansion, B Block Near RPS Law College, Raghunathpur, Danapur,
Patna- 801503.
8. The Secretary, Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission, Santosh
Mansion, B Block Near RPS Law College, Raghunathpur, Danapur, Patna.-
801503.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Sonu Kumar Son of Sri Bindeshwar Mahto, Resident of Village Gonhar
Nawada, PO Kharaj Jitwarpur, PS Muffasil, District Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
Mrs. Namrata Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate
For the BPSSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
2/41
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 11-03-2026
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the
judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6827 of 2023 whereby the writ petition
preferred by the writ petitioner, Sonu Kumar was allowed and the
order of dismissal from service passed against him was set aside.
2. The writ petitioner approached this Court seeking,
inter alia, the following reliefs:
"i. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ
of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the
order contained in Memo No. 1742 dated
20.06.2022
and the consequential order
contained in Memo No. 1620 dated 27.06.2020
whereby and whereunder the petitioner who
was appointed Sub-Inspector of Police has
been dismissed from service allegedly on the
ground that he had suppressed the pendency of
criminal case against him in his application
form against advertisement number 01/2017.
ii. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ
of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the
order dated 14.02.2023 whereby and
whereunder the competent authority has been
pleased to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner
against the order of dismissal from service.
iii. For issuance of an order, direction or a
writ of mandamus for directing the respondent
authorities to grant all consequential benefits
including reinstatement in service with entire
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
3/41
back wages for the period of idleness and all
other consequential benefits.”
3. The primary challenge in the writ petition was to the
order contained in Memo No. 1742 dated 20.06.2022 and the
consequential order contained in Memo No. 1620 dated
27.06.2022 whereby the petitioner, who had been appointed as a
Sub-Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service on the
allegation that he had suppressed the pendency of a criminal case
while filling up the application form pursuant to Advertisement
No. 01 of 2017. The petitioner also challenged the appellate order
dated 14.02.2023 whereby his appeal against the dismissal order
was rejected.
FACTS LEADING TO THE WRIT PETITION :
4. The relevant facts giving rise to the present litigation,
as pleaded by the parties, are as follows:
An advertisement bearing Advertisement No. 01 of 2017
dated 16.09.2017 was issued by the Bihar Police Subordinate
Service Commission inviting applications for appointment to the
post of Police Sub-Inspector against 1717 vacancies. The
petitioner, being eligible, submitted his online application form. In
the application form, he was required to disclose, inter alia,
whether any criminal case or F.I.R. had ever been registered
against him and whether any such case was pending at the time of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
4/41submission of the form. The petitioner answered the relevant
columns in the negative.
5. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in the preliminary
examination and was declared successful. He also qualified the
main examination and subsequently the Physical Eligibility Test.
After being declared successful in all stages of the selection
process, he was called upon for documents verification. At the
stage of documents verification, the petitioner was required to fill
up the verification roll prescribed under the Bihar Police Manual.
In Column No. 7 of the verification roll, the candidate was
required to disclose whether he had ever been accused in any
criminal or civil case and whether any case was pending against
him.
6. It is the petitioner’s case that while filling up the
verification roll in Column No. 8, he disclosed the pendency of a
criminal case being Samastipur Muffasil Case No. 291 of 2015
dated 21.09.2015. Subsequently, the verification roll was
processed by the concerned authorities and a noting was made
therein on 07.05.2019 indicating that the aforesaid criminal case
had been registered against the petitioner and that charge-sheet had
been submitted under sections 364, 302, 201 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
5/41
Despite the said disclosure and verification, the
petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 29.05.2019 by
the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Region, and he
joined the service. He was thereafter posted at Benipatti Police
Station in the district of Darbhanga.
7. While the petitioner was in service, an order dated
14.04.2020 was issued alleging that he had suppressed the
pendency of the criminal case while filling up the online
application form. On the basis of such allegation, he was placed
under orders of suspension and called upon to submit his
explanation.
The petitioner submitted his reply stating that the non-
disclosure in the online application form had occurred due to a
typing mistake by the operator at the cyber cafe who had filled up
the form on his behalf.
Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated
against him. A charge-sheet dated 14.08.2020 was served alleging
that he had made a false declaration in the application form and
had obtained appointment by suppressing material information
regarding the pendency of a criminal case.
8. The petitioner submitted his written statement of
defence before the Inquiry Officer. Upon completion of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
6/41
inquiry, the Inquiry Officer recorded a finding that the charge of
suppression of the criminal case stood proved. A second show-
cause notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner proposing the
punishment of dismissal from service. In response thereto, the
petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the disciplinary
proceeding, he had been acquitted in the criminal case by the
competent criminal Court at Samastipur and placed the certified
copy of the judgment of acquittal on record.
Despite the said submission, the disciplinary
authority passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2022
dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner
preferred a statutory appeal which was rejected by the
appellate authority on 14.02.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court.
9. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner
contended that the criminal case in question had been lodged
merely on suspicion and he had ultimately been honourably
acquitted after full trial. It was further contended that although
the pendency of the criminal case had not been mentioned in
the online application form, the petitioner had voluntarily
disclosed the same at the stage of verification by mentioning
the details of the case in the verification roll. The petitioner
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
7/41
argued that the disclosure had been made prior to issuance of
the appointment letter and therefore, the appointing authority
was fully aware of the pendency of the criminal case at the
time when the appointment letter was issued.
According to the petitioner, once the appointing
authority had issued the appointment letter after verification of the
records and with knowledge of the pending criminal case, it could
not subsequently be alleged that the petitioner had suppressed
material information. It was also submitted that the petitioner had
subsequently been acquitted by the trial court and there was no
other criminal antecedent against him. The petitioner further
contended before the learned Single Judge that he had qualified the
entire selection process on merit and that the alleged omission in
the application form occurred when he was only about 21 years of
age.
In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh
-Vrs.- Union of India reported in (2016) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 471, Ravindra Kumar -Vrs.- State of U.P. reported in
(2024) 5 Supreme Court Cases 264 and Commissioner of Police
-Vrs.- Dhaval Singh reported in (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases
246.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
8/41
10. The respondents, on the other hand, opposed the writ
petition and contended that the petitioner had deliberately
suppressed the pendency of a criminal case while filling up the
online application form.
According to the respondents, the criminal case
registered against the petitioner was for serious offences including
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the
suppression of such information could not be treated as a minor or
inadvertent mistake.
It was argued that candidates aspiring to join the police
force are required to maintain the highest standards of integrity
and character and any suppression of criminal antecedents would
render them unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force. The
respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Union of India -Vrs.- Methu Meda reported in (2022)
1 Supreme Court Cases 1 and contended that the non-disclosure
of the criminal case in the application form amounted to
misconduct warranting dismissal from service.
FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE :
11. The learned Single Judge, after considering the
pleadings of the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, framed the principal issue as to whether non-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
9/41
disclosure of the criminal case in the online application form
would constitute misconduct disentitling the petitioner from
continuing in service, particularly when the petitioner had
disclosed the pendency of the case at the stage of verification
prior to issuance of the appointment letter?
The learned Single Judge examined the provisions
contained in Rule 673 of the Bihar Police Manual relating to
verification of character and antecedents and observed that the
verification roll required the candidate to disclose whether he had
ever been accused in a criminal case, which reads as follows:
“673.(a) Verification roll.– A verification roll
shall be prepared in P.M. Form no.101 and
sent for verification to the home district of
every candidate, for the post of Sub-Inspector,
Reserve Sub-Inspector and Constable or any
ministerial post.
(b) In the case of semi-literate men such as
those recruited under relaxation of minimum
educational qualification in rule 663 the
questions on the roll shall be put to the
candidate by the reserve officer, or an officer
nominated for the purpose by the
Superintendent, and that officer shall write
down the answers, sign these with his full
signature and produce these, together with the
candidate, before the Superintendent. Literate
persons shall fill in and sign the answers
themselves. The Superintendent, if satisfied
with the answers, will sign the roll, have the
impression of the man’s left thumb taken in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
10/41space provided and pass an order for his
enlistment.
(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 dispatched to the
Superintendent of the district in which the
recruits home is situated. The number and
date of dispatch 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.”
12. The learned Single Judge thereafter considered the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh
(Supra) and Ravindra Kumar (Supra) and observed that while
suppression of criminal antecedents may in appropriate cases
justify termination of service, the employer is required to consider
the overall facts and circumstances including the nature of the
offence, the stage at which disclosure was made and the conduct of
the candidate. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
case, it was held that although the petitioner had failed to disclose
the criminal case in the online application form, he had voluntarily
disclosed the same at the stage of verification prior to issuance of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
11/41
the appointment letter. The learned Single Judge further observed
that the appointing authority had issued the appointment letter
after the verification process and therefore, it could not be said that
the authorities were unaware of the pendency of the criminal case
at the time of appointment. It was also noticed that the petitioner
had subsequently been acquitted by the trial Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge
held that the disciplinary authority had failed to properly consider
the relevant factors laid down in the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and that the dismissal order was therefore liable to
be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the
impugned orders of dismissal and rejection of appeal were
quashed.
SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT :
13. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf
of the appellants-State assailed the judgment of the learned Single
Judge primarily on the ground that the petitioner had made a false
declaration in the application form by stating that no criminal case
was pending against him. It was contended that the suppression of
such material information, particularly in respect of a case
involving serious offences including section 302 of I.P.C., would
render the candidate unsuitable for appointment in the police force.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
12/41
The learned Advocate General further argued that the
learned Single Judge had erred in placing reliance on the decisions
in Avtar Singh (Supra) and Ravindra Kumar (Supra), as the said
judgments would not apply in the present case where the
suppression related to a serious offence.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Ors. -Vrs.- Abhijit Singh
Pawar reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 733,
wherein following has been observed:
“12. A three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India was
required to consider the difference of opinion in
decisions of this Court on the question of
suppression of information or submission of
false information in the verification form on
issues pertaining to involvement in criminal
cases and the effect thereof. The law on the
point was settled by this Court in following
terms in para 38 of its decision as under: (SCC
pp. 507-08)
“38. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, we
summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the
employer by a candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or
pendency of a criminal case, whether
before or after entering into service
must be true and there should be no
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
13/41suppression or false mention of
required information.
38.2. While passing order of
termination of services or cancellation
of candidature for giving false
information, the employer may take
notice of special circumstances of the
case, if any, while giving such
information.
38.3. The employer shall take
into consideration the government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to
the employee, at the time of taking the
decision.
38.4. In case there is
suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where
conviction or acquittal had already
been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of
employer, any of the following
recourses appropriate to the case may
be adopted:
38.4.1. 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 an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the
employer may, in its discretion, ignore
such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has
been recorded in case which is not
trivial in nature, employer may cancel
candidature or terminate services of the
employee.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
14/41
38.4.3. 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.
38.5. In a case where the
employee has made declaration
truthfully of a concluded criminal case,
the employer still has the right to
consider antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has
been truthfully declared in character
verification form regarding pendency of
a criminal case of trivial nature,
employer, in facts and circumstances of
the case, in its discretion, may appoint
the candidate subject to decision of
such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate
suppression of fact with respect to
multiple pending cases such false
information by itself will assume
significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling
candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom
multiple criminal cases were pending
may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was
pending but not known to the candidate
at the time of filling the form, still it
may have adverse impact and the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
15/41
appointing authority would take
decision after considering the
seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is
confirmed in service, holding
departmental enquiry would be
necessary before passing order of
termination/removal or dismissal on the
ground of suppression or submitting
false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining
suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be
specific, not vague. Only such
information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be
disclosed. If information not asked for
but is relevant comes to knowledge of
the employer the same can be
considered in an objective manner
while addressing the question of fitness.
However, in such cases action cannot
be taken on basis of suppression or
submitting false information as to a fact
which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held
guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio
falsi, knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him.”
(emphasis in original)
13. In Avtar Singh, 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 to consider
antecedents of the candidate and could not be
compelled to appoint such candidate.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
16/41
14. In the present case, as on the
date when the respondent had applied, a
criminal case was pending against him.
Compromise was entered into only after an
affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed.
On the issue of compounding of offences and
the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8)
CrPC, the law declared by this Court in Mehar
Singh, specially in paras 34 and 35 completely
concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure
is made by a candidate, the employer would be
well within his rights to consider the
antecedents and the suitability of the
candidate. While so considering, the employer
can certainly take into account the job profile
for which the selection is undertaken, the
severity of the charges levelled against the
candidate and whether the acquittal in
question was an honourable acquittal or was
merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as
a result of composition.
15. The reliance placed by Mr Dave,
learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this
Court in Mohd. Imran is not quite correct and
said decision cannot be of any assistance to
the respondent. In para 5 of the said decision,
this Court had found that the only allegation
against the appellant therein was that he was
travelling in an autorickshaw which was
following the autorickshaw in which the prime
accused, who was charged under Section 376
IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in
question and that all the accused were
acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the
allegation. The decision in Mohd. Imran thus
turned on individual facts and cannot in any
way be said to have departed from the line of
decisions rendered by this Court in Mehar
Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
17/41
16. We must observe at this stage
that there is nothing on record to suggest that
the decision taken by the authorities concerned
in rejecting the candidature of the respondent
was in any way actuated by mala fides or
suffered on any other count. The decision on
the question of suitability of the respondent, in
our considered view, was absolutely correct
and did not call for any interference. We,
therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the
decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well
as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ
Petition No. 9412 of 2013 preferred by the
respondent. No costs.”
14. Further, reliance was placed in the case of
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr.
-Vrs.- Anil Kanwariya reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 136 in which it is held as under:-
“8. While considering the aforesaid
issues, few decisions of this Court on
appointment obtained by
fraud/misrepresentation and/or appointment
obtained by suppression of material facts are
required to be referred to and considered.
8.1. In B. Chinnam Naidul, this
Court has observed that the object of requiring
information in the attestation form and the
declaration thereafter by the candidate is to
ascertain and verify the character and
antecedents to judge his suitability to enter
into or continue in service. It is further
observed that when a candidate suppresses
material information and/or gives false
information, he cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuance in service.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
18/418.2. In Devendra Kumar, while
joining the training, the employee was asked to
submit an affidavit giving certain information,
particularly, whether he had ever been
involved in any criminal case. The employee
submitted an affidavit stating that he had never
been involved in any criminal case. The
employee completed his training satisfactorily
and it was at this time that the employer in
pursuance of the process of character
verification came to know that the employee
was in fact involved in a criminal case. It was
found that the final report in that case had
been submitted by the prosecution and
accepted by the Judicial Magistrate
concerned. On the basis of the same, the
employee was discharged abruptly on the
ground that since he was a temporary
government servant, he could be removed from
service without holding an enquiry. The said
order was challenged by the employee by filing
a writ petition before a Single Judge of the
High Court which was dismissed. The Division
Bench upheld that order, which was the
subject-matter of appeal before this Court.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court observed
and held that the question is not whether the
employee is suitable for the post. The pendency
of a criminal case/proceeding is different from
suppressing the information of such pendency.
The case pending against a person might not
involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this
information itself amounts to moral turpitude.
It is further observed that the information
sought by the employer if not disclosed as
required, would definitely amount to
suppression of material information and in
that eventuality, the service becomes liable to
be terminated, even if there had been no
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
19/41further trial or the person concerned stood
acquitted/discharged.
8.3. It is further observed by this
Court in Devendra Kumar that where an
applicant employee gets an order by
misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud
upon the competent authority, such an order
cannot be sustained in the eye of the law.
“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical
or temporal.” It is further observed and held
that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear
the fruit and benefit those persons who have
defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in
such circumstances, the court should not
perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions
on their behalf.
8.4. The relevant observations in the
said decision are in paras 12, 13, 18 and 25,
which are as under: (Devendra Kumar case,
SCC pp. 368-69 & 371)
12. So far as the issue of
obtaining the appointment by
misrepresentation is concerned, it is
no more res integra. The question is
not whether the applicant is suitable
for the post. The pendency of a
criminal case/proceeding is different
from suppressing the information of
such pendency. The case pending
against a person might not involve
moral turpitude but suppressing of
this information itself amounts to
moral turpitude. In fact, the
information sought by the employer if
not disclosed as required, would
definitely amount to suppression of
material information. In that
eventuality, the service becomes
liable to be terminated, even if there
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
20/41had been no further trial or the
person concerned stood
acquitted/discharged.”
15. Further reliance has also been placed on in the case
of State of Rajasthan and others -Vrs.- Chetan Jeff reported in
AIR 2022 SC 2274 in which it has been held as under:-
“6.We have heard learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties at length.
6.1.At the outset, it is required to be
noted that the post on which the writ
petitioner is seeking the appointment is the
post of constable. It cannot be disputed that
the duty of the constable is to maintain law
and order. Therefore, it is expected that he
should be honest, trustworthy and that his
integrity is above board and that he is
reliable. An employee in the uniformed service
presupposes a higher level of integrity as such
a person is expected to uphold the law and on
the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge
cannot be tolerated. In the present case the
original writ petitioner has not confirmed to
the above expectations/ requirements. He
suppressed the material facts of his criminal
antecedents. He did not disclose in the
application form that against him a criminal
case/FIR is pending. On the contrary, in the
application form, he made a false statement
that he is not facing any criminal case.
Therefore, due to the aforesaid suppression,
his candidature came to be rejected by the
appropriate authority. Despite the above, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petitioner and directed the State to consider
the case of the original writ petitioner for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
21/41appointment as a constable mainly on the
ground that the offences were trivial in nature
and the suppression of such offences should
have been ignored. The same has been
confirmed by the Division Bench.
6.2.The question is not whether the
offences were trivial in nature or not. The
question is one of suppression of material fact
by the original writ petitioner in respect of his
criminal antecedents and making a false
statement in the application form. If in the
beginning itself, he has suppressed the
material fact in respect to his criminal
antecedents and in fact made an incorrect
statement, how can he be appointed as a
constable. How can he be trusted thereafter in
future? How it is expected that thereafter he
will perform his duty honestly and with
integrity?
6.3.Therefore, as such the
authorities were justified in rejecting the
candidature of the respondent for the post of
constable.
6.4.At this stage the decision of this
Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav
(supra) is required to be referred to. In paras
14 and 16, it is observed and held as under:
“14. Rule 14 of the Central Reserve
Police Force Rules, 1955 relevant in this case
relates to verification. Clauses (a) and (b) of
the said Rule are extracted below:
“14. Verification.-(a) As soon as a
man is enrolled, his character, antecedents,
connections and age shall be verified in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by
the Central Government from time to time.
The verification roll shall be sent to the
District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
22/41of the District of which the recruit is a
resident.
(b) The verification roll shall be in
CRP Form 25 and after verification shall be
attached to the character and service roll of
the member of the force concerned.”
The purpose of seeking the said
information is to ascertain the character and
antecedents of the candidate so as to assess
his suitability for the post. Therefore, the
candidate will have to answer the questions in
these columns truthfully and fully and any
misrepresentation or suppression or false
statement therein, by itself would demonstrate
a conduct or character unbefitting for a
uniformed security service.
16. Thus an employee on probation
can be discharged from service or a
prospective employee may be refused
employment : (i) on the ground of
unsatisfactory antecedents and character,
disclosed from his conviction in a criminal
case, or his involvement in a criminal offence
(even if he was acquitted on technical grounds
or by giving benefit of doubt) or other conduct
(like copying in examination) or rustication or
suspension or debarment from college, etc.;
and (ii) on the ground of suppression of
material information or making false
statement in reply to queries relating to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal
offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in
the criminal case). This ground is distinct
from the ground of previous antecedents and
character, as it shows a current dubious
conduct and absence of character at the time
of making the declaration, thereby making him
unsuitable for the post.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
23/41
6.5.In State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam
Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 : (2005 AIR SCW
1058), this Court has observed that the object
of requiring information in the attestation
form and the declaration thereafter by the
candidate is to ascertain and verify the
character and antecedents to judge his
suitability to enter into or continue in service.
It is further observed that when a candidate
suppresses material information and/or gives
false information, he cannot claim any right
for appointment or continuance in service.
6.6.In Devendra Kumar v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 : (AIR 2013
SC 3325), while joining the training, the
employee was asked to submit an affidavit
giving certain information, particularly,
whether he had ever been involved in any
criminal case. The employee submitted an
affidavit stating that he had never been
involved in any criminal case. The employee
completed his training satisfactorily and it
was at this time that the employer in
pursuance of the process of character
verification came to know that the employee
was in fact involved in a criminal case. It was
found that the final report in that case had
been submitted by the prosecution and
accepted by the Judicial Magistrate
concerned. On the basis of the same, the
employee was discharged abruptly on the
ground that since he was a temporary
government servant, he could be removed
from service without holding an enquiry. The
said order was challenged by the employee by
filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of
the High Court which was dismissed. The
Division Bench upheld that order, which was
the subject matter of appeal before this Court.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
24/41
Dismissing the appeal, this Court observed
and held that the question is not whether the
employee is suitable for the post. The
pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is
different from suppressing the information of
such pendency. The case pending against a
person might not involve moral turpitude but
suppressing of this information itself amounts
to moral turpitude. It is further observed that
the information sought by the employer if not
disclosed as required, would definitely amount
to suppression of material information and in
that eventuality, the service becomes liable to
be terminated, even if there had been no
further trial or the person concerned stood
acquitted/discharged.
6.7.In the case of Jainendra Singh
v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 : (2012
AIR SCW 4347), in para 29.4, this Court has
observed and held that “a candidate having
suppressed material information and/or giving
false information cannot claim right to
continue in service and the employer, having
regard to the nature of employment as well as
other aspects, has the discretion to terminate
his services. In para 29.6, it is further
observed that the person who suppressed the
material information and/or gives false
information cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuity in service. In para
29.7, it is observed and held that “the
standard expected of a person intended to
serve in uniformed service is quite distinct
from other services and, therefore, any
deliberate statement or omission regarding a
vital information can be seriously viewed and
the ultimate decision of the appointing
authority cannot be faulted.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
25/41
6.8.In Daya Shankar Yadav v.
Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103 : (2011
AIR SCW 396), this Court had an occasion to
consider the purpose of seeking the
information with respect to antecedents. It is
observed and held that the purpose of seeking
the information with respect to antecedents is
to ascertain the character and antecedents of
the candidate so as to assess his suitability for
the post. It is further observed that when an
employee or a prospective employee declares
in a verification form, answers to the queries
relating to character and antecedents, the
verification thereof can lead to any of the
following consequences: (SCC pp. 110-11,
para 15)
“15. … (a) If the declarant has
answered the questions in the affirmative and
furnished the details of any criminal case
(wherein he was convicted or acquitted by
giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence),
the employer may refuse to offer him
employment (or if already employed on
probation, discharge him from service), if he
is found to be unfit having regard to the nature
and gravity of the offence/crime in which he
was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the
employer finds that the criminal case
disclosed by the declarant related to offences
which were technical, or of a nature that
would not affect the declarant’s fitness for
employment, or where the declarant had been
honourably acquitted and exonerated, the
employer may ignore the fact that the
declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal
case and proceed to appoint him or continue
him in employment.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
26/41
(c) Where the declarant has
answered the questions in the negative and on
verification it is found that the answers were
false, the employer may refuse to employ the
declarant (or discharge him, if already
employed), even if the declarant had been
cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is
because when there is suppression or non-
disclosure of material information bearing on
his character, that itself becomes a reason for
not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or
verification form does not contain proper or
adequate queries requiring the declarant to
disclose his involvement in any criminal
proceedings, or where the candidate was
unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings
when he gave the declarations in the
verification roll/attestation form, then the
candidate cannot be found fault with, for not
furnishing the relevant information. But if the
employer by other means (say police
verification or complaints, etc.) learns about
the involvement of the declarant, the employer
can have recourse to courses (a) or (b)
above.”
Thereafter, it is observed and held
that an employee can be discharged from
service or a prospective employee may be
refused employment on the ground of
suppression of material information or making
false statement in reply to queries relating to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal
offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in
the criminal case).
6.9.In State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh
Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733: (AIR 2018 SC
(Supp) 1493), when the employee participated
in the selection process, he tendered an
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
27/41
affidavit disclosing the pending criminal case
against him. The affidavit was filed on 22-12-
2012. According to the disclosure, a case
registered in the year 2006 was pending on
the date when the affidavit was tendered.
However, within four days of filing such an
affidavit, a compromise was entered into
between the original complainant and the
employee and an application for compounding
the offence was filed under Section 320 CrPC.
The employee came to be discharged in view
of the deed of compromise. That thereafter the
employee was selected in the examination and
was called for medical examination. However,
around the same time, his character
verification was also undertaken and after due
consideration of the character verification
report, his candidature was rejected. The
employee filed a writ petition before the High
Court challenging rejection of his
candidature. The learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the
said writ petition. The judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge directing
the State to appoint the employee came to be
confirmed by the Division Bench which led to
appeal before this Court. After considering a
catena of decisions on the point including the
decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India,
(2016) 8 SCC 471 : (AIR 2016 SC 3598), this
Court upheld the order of the State rejecting
the candidature of the employee by observing
that as held in Avtar Singh (supra), even in
cases where a truthful disclosure about a
concluded case was made, the employer
would still have a right to consider
antecedents of the candidate and could not be
compelled to appoint such candidate.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
28/41
6.10.After reproducing and/or
reconsidering para 38.5 of the decision in
Avtar Singh (supra), in Abhijit Singh Pawar
(supra), in para 13, this Court observed and
held as under:
“13. In Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v.
Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (AIR
2016 SC 3598), 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 to consider
antecedents of the candidate and could not be
compelled to appoint such candidate.”
6.11.Recently, in the case of
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC
136 : (AIROnline 2021 SC 728), this Court
had an occasion to consider the submission on
behalf of an employee whose services were
terminated on the ground of filing a false
declaration to the effect that neither a
criminal case is pending against him nor has
he been convicted by any Court of law, that
subsequently he has been granted the benefit
of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders
Act and therefore his services ought not to
have been terminated. This Court has
observed in paras 13 and 14 as under:
“13. Even otherwise, subsequently
getting the benefit of Section 12 of the 1958
Act shall not be helpful to the respondent
inasmuch as the question is about filing a
false declaration on 14-4-2015 that neither
any criminal case is pending against him nor
has he been convicted by any court of law,
which was much prior to the order passed by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
29/41the learned Sessions Court granting the
benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act. As
observed hereinabove, even in case of
subsequent acquittal, the employee once made
a false declaration and/or suppressed the
material fact of pending criminal case shall
not be entitled to an appointment as a matter
of right.
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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
30/41claim the appointment and/or continue to be
in service as a matter of right.”
7. Applying the law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid cases, it cannot be
said that the authority committed any error in
rejecting the candidature of the original writ
petitioner for the post of constable in the
instant case.
9.In view of the above discussion
and for the reasons stated above, both, the
learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench have erred in directing the State to
consider the case of the respondent for
appointment as a constable. The judgment and
order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable, both, on facts as well as on
law. Under the circumstances, the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside and is
accordingly quashed and set aside. It is held
that the candidature of the respondent –
original writ petitioner for the post of
constable had been rightly rejected by the
appropriate authority. Present appeal is
accordingly allowed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.”
It was therefore argued that the learned Single Judge had
committed an error in interfering with the dismissal order.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT :
16. The learned counsel for the respondent on the
other hand supported the impugned judgment and placed
reliance in the case of Ravindra Kumar -Vrs.- State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
31/41OnLine SC 180, where a question came for adjudication as to
whether non-disclosure of a criminal case (in which the
candidate is acquitted) in the verification form is fatal for the
candidate’s employment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after
considering the ratio laid down in the case of Avtar Singh
-Vrs.- Union of India and Ors. reported in (2016) 8
Supreme Court Cases 471 held as under:-
“23. As would be clear from Avtar
Singh (Supra), it has been clearly laid down
that though a person who has suppressed the
material information cannot claim unfettered
right for appointment, he or she has a right
not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of
power has to be in a reasonable manner with
objectivity and having due regard to the facts.
In short, the ultimate action should be based
upon objective criteria after due consideration
of all relevant aspects.
…….32. The nature of the office, the
timing and nature of the criminal case; the
overall consideration of the judgement of
acquittal; the nature of the query in the
application/verification form; the contents of
the character verification reports; the socio
economic strata of the individual applying; the
other antecedents of the candidate; the nature
of consideration and the contents of the
cancellation/termination order are some of the
crucial aspects which should enter the judicial
verdict in adjudging suitability and in
determining the nature of relief to be ordered
……..34.On the facts of the case and
in the backdrop of the special circumstances set
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
32/41out hereinabove, where does the non-
disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case,
(which too ended in acquittal), stand in the
scheme of things? In our opinion on the
peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can
be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-
brushing every non-disclosure as a
disqualification, will be unjust and the same
will tantamount to being completely oblivious
to the ground realities obtaining in this great,
vast and diverse country. Each case will
depend on the facts and circumstances that
prevail thereon, and the court will have to take
a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with
the available precedents serving as a guide. It
can never be a one size fits all scenario.”
17. He further submits that on reading of the judgment
by which the respondent has been acquitted of the criminal offence
alleged to have been committed by him , it is clear that it amounts
to clean acquittal. In this regard, he has placed reliance in the case
of Ram Lal -Vrs.- State of Rajasthan and others reported in
(2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 175 wherein what will constitute
clean acquittal has been explained as follows:-
“27. What is important to notice is
that the Appellate Judge has clearly recorded
that in the document Ext. P-3 original
marksheet of the 8th standard, the date of birth
was clearly shown as 21-4-1972 and the other
documents produced by the prosecution were
either letters or a duplicate marksheet. No
doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it
becomes doubtful whether the date of birth
was 21-4-1974 and that the accused was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
33/41entitled to receive its benefit. However, what
we are supposed to see is the substance of the
judgment. A reading of the entire judgment
clearly indicates that the appellant was
acquitted after full consideration of the
prosecution evidence and after noticing that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the charge (see S. Samuthiram).
28. Expressions like “benefit of
doubt” and “honourably acquitted”, used in
judgments are not to be understood as magic
incantations. A court of law will not be carried
away by the mere use of such terminology. In
the present case, the Appellate Judge has
recorded that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet
carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the
same has also been proved by the witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution. The
conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal
proceeding was after full consideration of the
prosecution evidence and that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the charge can only
be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in
its entirety. The Court in judicial review is
obliged to examine the substance of the
judgment and not go by the form of expression
used.”
SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE IN LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL:
18. Before examining the rival submissions, it would be
appropriate to notice the limited scope of interference in an intra-
court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. A Letters Patent
Appeal is an intra-court appeal, whereby the judgment of a learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
34/41
Single Judge exercising writ jurisdiction is examined by a Division
Bench of the same High Court. However, it is well settled that
such jurisdiction is not equivalent to a full rehearing of the matter
on facts and law as in a regular first appeal. The Appellate Court
does not ordinarily substitute its own view merely because another
view may also be possible on the same set of facts.
The jurisdiction of the Division Bench in a Letters
Patent Appeal is 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.
This limitation flows from the very structure of writ jurisdiction.
When a writ petition is decided by a Single Judge, the Court
exercises supervisory and constitutional jurisdiction. If every
factual finding recorded by the learned Single Judge were to be
reopened in appeal, the very purpose of assigning writ matters to a
Single Judge would be defeated and the appellate court would
effectively function as another court of first instance.
Therefore, the consistent view taken by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is that interference in an intra-court appeal must
remain confined to cases where the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge is either perverse, unsupported by the material on record, or
contrary to settled legal principles. The Supreme Court in the case
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
35/41
of B. Venkatamuni -Vrs.- C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors.
reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 449 has observed as
follows:
“In an intra-court appeal, the
Division Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to
re-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 v. Dukhi Sao (1974) 2 SCC 492 that the
power of the appellate court in intra-court
appeal is not exactly the same as 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.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also explained that
while exercising intra-court appellate jurisdiction, the Division
Bench must keep in mind that the learned Single Judge has already
evaluated the pleadings, the documents on record and the
submissions of the parties. Unless the conclusions drawn are
wholly unreasonable or suffer from legal infirmity, the Appellate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
36/41
Court would ordinarily refrain from interfering with the findings
so recorded. The principle has been reiterated in several decisions
including Management of Narendra and Company Private
Limited. -Vrs.- Workmen of Narendra and Company reported
in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 340 and Umabai and Anr.
-Vrs.- Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan reported in (2005) 6
Supreme Court Cases 243 that the appellate jurisdiction under
the Letters Patent is not meant to substitute the view of the
Division Bench merely because another view is possible. The
power is 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.
ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS :
19. Keeping in mind that the jurisdiction of this Court
while dealing with this Letters Patent Appeal is primarily
corrective in nature and interference would only be warranted
when the judgment of the learned Single Judge is found to be
suffering from patent illegality, perversity or manifest error of law,
this Court is hereby adjudicating this case within the narrow
compass of judicial review available to it.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
37/41
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants-State has strongly contended that the petitioner had
suppressed material information relating to the pendency of a
criminal case while filling up the online application form and such
suppression, particularly in relation to a serious offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, would render the candidate
unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force like the police. It
is submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to properly
appreciate this aspect and erred in interfering with the order of
dismissal. The appellants have relied upon the line of decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court which emphasize that a candidate
seeking appointment to a disciplined force is under a duty to make
a truthful disclosure of his criminal antecedents, and any deliberate
suppression of such information may justify termination from
service.
21. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law
laid down in the said decisions. The requirement of maintaining
integrity, transparency and impeccable character is of paramount
importance in services connected with law enforcement. A person
seeking appointment in such service is expected to disclose all
relevant facts relating to his antecedents so that the employer may
assess his suitability for the post.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
38/41
However, the applicability of the aforesaid principle
depends upon the factual matrix of each individual case,
particularly the circumstances in which the alleged suppression
occurred and whether the employer was ultimately misled
regarding the antecedents of the candidate.
After going through the two very important documents
which are relevant in this case i.e. the application form and the
verification roll, we find that the respondent in the verification roll,
though in column no. 7 has mentioned that no criminal case is
pending against him, but in column no. 8 of the verification roll,
he has mentioned that about the pendency of the case bearing Case
no. 291, 21 September 2015, Samastipur Mufassil, Samastipur.
More importantly, this verification roll was verified by the
concerned authority and on 07/05/2019, a noting was recorded that
a criminal case bearing Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 291 of
2015 was pending against the petitioner in which charge-sheet has
been submitted.
The learned Advocate General submitted that the
disclosure against column no. 8 has been filled up by the Inquiry
Officer and not by the respondent, in order to deprive the
respondent of the benefit of disclosure made by him. We are
unable to accept such contention advanced by the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
39/41
Advocate General for the reason that no such averment or pleading
to that effect was ever made by the appellant either before the Writ
Court or in the memo of appeal of this L.P.A. It is submission like
a drowning man catches at a straw.
22. We find that despite such disclosure in verification
roll, the appointing authority proceeded to issue the appointment
letter in favour of the petitioner and permitted him to join the
service. Thus, unlike the cases relied upon by the appellants, this is
not a situation where the employer remained unaware of the
criminal antecedent due to suppression by the candidate. On the
contrary, the record demonstrates that the fact relating to the
pendency of the criminal case was very much within the
knowledge of the authorities during the verification process prior
to issuance of the appointment letter.
The crucial distinction, therefore, lies in the fact that the
alleged omission in the application form did not ultimately result
in concealment of the criminal antecedent from the appointing
authority. The authorities had the opportunity to examine the
antecedents of the petitioner at the stage of verification and still
chose to appoint him to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
Once the employer had issued the appointment letter
after verification of the relevant records, it cannot subsequently be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
40/41
contended that the respondent had secured the appointment by
misleading the authorities or by suppressing material information.
23. In this context, the learned Single Judge has also
taken note of the fact that the petitioner had subsequently been
acquitted in the criminal case by the competent criminal Court
after full trial. It is also significant to note that the disciplinary
authority proceeded to impose the extreme penalty of dismissal
solely on the basis of non-disclosure in the online application form
without adequately considering the surrounding circumstances,
including the fact that the authorities were aware as on 07.05.2019
about the pendency of criminal case against the respondent and
still chose to appoint him.
The judgments relied upon by the appellants would
ordinarily apply in cases where the suppression of criminal
antecedent prevents the employer from evaluating the suitability of
the candidate at the stage of appointment. The present case stands
on a different footing, as the material on record indicates that the
authorities were aware of the criminal case at the time when the
appointment order was issued. In such circumstances, the view
taken by the learned Single Judge that the dismissal order required
interference cannot be said to be unreasonable or contrary to the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.741 of 2025 dt.11-03-2026
41/41
24. After careful consideration of the reasonings
recorded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find that the
impugned judgment suffers from any perversity, illegality or
manifest error warranting interference in exercise of appellate
jurisdiction under the Letters Patent, which in any case is very
limited as explained in catena of judgments discussed herein
above.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
satisfied that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the
materials on record and applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
Consequently, the present Letters Patent Appeal fails and
is accordingly dismissed.
25. All pending I.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order to costs.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.03.2026 Transmission Date NA