IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3649 of 2008 Ram Prit Paswan, son of Late Vasudev Paswan, village Raiyam, PS Bharavsthan, District Madhubani – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2) The D.G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3) The D.I.G. of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga. 4) The S.P. Madhubani – Respondents. 3 19.4.2011 The petitioner was appointed as a constable vide order, dated 10.7.1999 contained in Annexure 6. The order stated that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to verification of his antecedent. While filling the form which is contained in Annexure ‘D’ one of the questions put was whether the petitioner was accused in any criminal case. In the form the petitioner has replied in the negative. A report with respect to the antecedent was received thereafter which indicates that the petitioner was accused in five cases. Subsequently, the petitioner was terminated from service. The termination order was set aside and the department proceeded by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and after hearing him passed Annexure 1 and subsequently Annexures 4 and 5 which are the orders in the appeal. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that although he was accused in four cases, he was subsequently acquitted in all the four cases and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner had a bad criminal antecedent. It is submitted that until a 2 person is found guilty, he cannot be said to be a person of bad character. The cases that were pending against the petitioner are Bhairo Asthan PS Case No. 35/1986 under sections 457 and 380 of the Penal Code in which the petitioner was acquitted on 10.3.2006, Bhairo Asthan PS Case No. 82/1992 under sections 457 and 380 of the Penal Code. The petitioner was acquitted in this case on 30.3.2006, Pandaul PS Case No. 111/1991 under sections 453 and 411 of the Penal Code in which the petitioner was acquitted on 12.8.2005 and Bhairo Asthan PS Case No. 115/1992 under sections 457 and 380 of the Penal Code. The petitioner was acquitted in this case also on 19.4.1995. Except the last case, all the cases were pending against the petitioner at the time of appointment. The petitioner was granted bail and was pursuing the criminal cases during the interregnum period. Another case is Bhairo Asthan PS Case No. 21/1997 under section 395 of the Penal Code in which the petitioner is suspected to be involved in the said occurrence. The fact is that the petitioner was an accused in all the four cases at the time when he had filled up the form and wrongly mentioned that he was not accused in any case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he cannot be dismissed from service on the ground aforesaid as once he has been acquitted in the cases, he is no longer accused which indicates that the cases were wrongly lodged against him. The State counsel, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner is not entitled to remain in service especially in view of 3 the fact that after his appointment, on verification, it came to the knowledge of the authorities that the petitioner was accused in several cases for which letter of termination was issued. It is not that the petitioner did not have the knowledge of the fact that he was arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid cases. To substantiate his submissions Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment, dated 20.9.1993 passed in CWJC No. 3130/1986. In the said case the facts are that one Satendra Kumar was appointed as constable in the Bihar Military Police on 11.6.1975. A criminal case was instituted against him in which he was not named as an accused but later he was arrayed as an accused in the charge sheet and shown as an absconder. The court came to the conclusion that the petitioner on the date he had filled the form for appointment did not have knowledge of the fact that he was accused in the case. Subsequently, the petitioner was also acquitted in the criminal case. The court on the basis of the aforesaid facts found that in the circumstances when the petitioner did not have the knowledge of being an accused cannot be said that he had suppressed the fact or misled the authorities and while being issued the letter of appointment. Counsel for the petitioner next relies on a Division Bench decision of this court passed in CWJC No. 6291/1995. The facts of that case was that the petitioner had been terminated from service without being given any opportunity of being heard. In that case petitioner Janak Kishore Singh had similarly suppressed the fact. The court eventually held that considering the terms and 4 conditions of appointment, it was always open to the authorities to cancel the petitioner’s appointment if on verification it was found that he was involved in a criminal case. However, liberty was given that if he was acquitted, then he may be entitled to reappointment. This court does not know whether the petitioner aforesaid was reappointed or not. The aforesaid case is distinguishable as in the present case full-fledged departmental enquiry took place and thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service. Considering all the facts aforesaid I am not inclined to interfere with Annexures 1, 4 and 5. This writ petition is dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)