IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3593 of 2004 CHANDRADEEP YADAV SON OF KUMAR YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TEARIYA P.O. DUDHAUL, P.S. KASMA DISTRICT AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE D.I.G. MAGADH RANGE, GAYA. 4. THE S.P. AURANGABAD. ----------- 3 16/07/2010 Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the police department in the district of Aurangabad. His recruitment was from the quota of Homeguard. When the appointment was made is not indicated in the writ application but he has been dismissed from service after the charges were framed against him in the year 2000 and order of punishment came to be passed by the Superintendent of Police on 31.12.2002. Appeal therefrom including the memorial also stood rejected. Short facts which led to dismissal of the petitioner is that after his appointment to the post of constable a complaint was made by one Banwari Paswan who happened to be Chowkidar of Kasma police station. In his written complaint he informed the authorities that the petitioner has - 2 - suppressed a vital fact from the respondents at the time of gaining employment that he was an accused in Kasma P.S. Case No.32/93 dated 15.07.1993 instituted under sections 147, 148, 149, 457, 449, 364, 323, 324, 325 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 27 of the Arms Act and section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Case relates to murder of one Jagdish Paswan, who happened to be a chowkidar of village Tetaria. This information, obviously, startled the respondents, enquiry came to be held and on the finding about involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case and non-declaration of the said fact by the petitioner at the time of initial recruitment/appointment came to be established. Order of dismissal came to be passed thereafter. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner thereafter has been acquitted by the trial court. The acquittal order by itself entitles him to go back to the service as he is no longer an accused. Other explanation offered by him with regard to non-declaration is that it was an old matter and he forgot about it or was under the impression that the issue stands dropped as he had not heard from the Court with regard to the case in any manner. - 3 - The factum that the petitioner was an accused in a case of murder and was alleged to be part of an outlawed or a banned organization was a serious issue. The case came to be instituted against the petitioner along with other accused in the year 1993. Departmental proceeding was initiated in the year 2000. Even in absence of the date of appointment of the petitioner, seven year is the outer period when the proceeding was initiated. The Court can surely take notice that the petitioner must have been appointed atleast a year or two before the proceeding was initiated. It is very difficult for this Court to believe the explanation that the petitioner would have forgotten about a case of such a serious nature in a gap of five years or had reasons to believe that the case had been closed or dropped. Obviously, there was a deliberate intent in not making a declaration of his involvement in a serious criminal case, lest it would have marred his prospect of employment. Question is not about involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case or his acquittal therefrom. Issue is of suppression of vital fact or non-declaration of that fact at the time of gaining employment under the State and that too - 4 - with the police department which he was duty bound to disclose. Obviously, petitioner is guilty of suppression of a vital fact for r gaining employment. Punishment order passed after due enquiry is commensurate with the indiscretion of the petitioner. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed as such. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)