IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4472 of 2011 Dharmendra Kumar, son of Ram Pravesh Singh, resident of Village-Masarah, P S – Udwant Nagar, District - Bhojpur _______ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Home Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Personal, Patna. 5. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Patna. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ara. 8. The Inspector of Police, Ara. 9. The Officer Incharge, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur, Ara. __________ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Manoj Kumar and Raj Narain Mishra. For the State : Mr. R. R. Tiwari, AC to AAG 12. ---- 03. 28.7.2011 Annexure-8 dated 11.11.2009 issued by the DIG(Personnel), Government of Bihar, is assailed in the present writ application. By virtue of this decision candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of sub Inspector of Police has been rejected or rescinded on the ground that the petitioner had made mis-declaration, if not wrong declaration with regard to his involvement in a criminal case. Petitioner was one of the successful candidates in terms of Advertisement No. 704 of 2004. An exercise for filling up the post of Sub Inspectors of Police was carried out in the State of Bihar. All had been well for the petitioner except that when his police verification form was sent to the Superintendent of Police of the district of 2 Bhojpur, it was brought to the notice of the respondent authority that petitioner had been made an accused in Udwant Nagar P.S. Case No. 209 of 2002 under sections 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet was also submitted in the said case. In other words, petitioner was an accused in a criminal case but this fact was not disclosed by him in the police verification form, which is Annexure-9(i). Reference specially is to Column No.7 of the said form. Submission of the counsel representing the petitioner is that the matter arose from the village politics when an FIR was registered in the year 2002 but by the time the occasion for filling the form for police verification came, some time in the month of July-August, 2008 petitioner was already exonerated of the charges by the trial court. The decision of the trial court is dated 30th April, 2008 and has been brought on record as Annexure-4. He contends therefore that on the date when he filled up the application for police verification there was no mis-declaration as an acquittal by the court amounts to a clean chit for him for all practical purposes. It was not his intent to suppress or not disclose the fact but this intervening circumstance and development surely weighed in the mind of the petitioner to make a declaration that he is not an accused any more. Counsel thereafter also submits that since there 3 was no lack of intent on the part of the petitioner, his success in the recruitment on the post, cannot be taken away for a so-called omission of the kind, which is being pointed out against him in the impugned order of the DIG. His stand is that petitioner has not made any mis-declaration. He submits that in a case where a person was acquitted on the basis of compromise on criminal charge, he was allowed to be appointed by the Hon`ble Supreme Court, taking a broader view of the situation as well as applying the principle of reformation in favour of that candidate. The case in question brought to the notice of the Court is Commr. of Police & ors v. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 (2) PLJR 196 (SC). The Court is tempted to quote paragraphs 12 to 17 for the reason that approach to such problems are reflected not only from the wisdom of the Supreme Court but even in the English decision from where we borrow liberally. “12. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people 4 rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 13. In this connection, we may refer to the character „Jean Valjean‟ in Victor Hugo‟s novel „Less Miserables‟, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. 14. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life. 15. We may also here to refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book „Due Process of Law‟. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. They came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed:- “I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell‟s third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in 5 a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the Judge to show – and to show to all students everywhere – that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land – and I speak both for England and Wales – they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down. But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this Court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all 6 they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards – of the poets and the singers – more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong – very wrong – in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed.” [Vide: Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114] 16. In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. 17. As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned.” Stand of the State in the counter affidavit is a rigid one because according to them, there was a deliberate suppression of vital fact by the petitioner being involved in a criminal case. Even though he had been acquitted subsequently, this information ought to have been given because information which was sought in the column for police verification was whether he ever was an accused and not whether he was exonerated or acquitted of the charge. In the opinion of the Court and wisdom of the 7 Supreme Court the conduct of the petitioner is not of the kind where a strict or harsh view ought to be taken and life of the petitioner allowed to be ruined for such a non- issue or indiscretion. Taking que from the decision of the Supreme Court, the impugned order contained in Annexure-8 is quashed. Writ is allowed with a direction upon the respondents that the petitioner will be offered letter of appointment and permitted to join forthwith without any impediment. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)