IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14104 of 2009 1. DEVENDRA YADAV S/O SUBHASH YADAV VILL- CHITTONI, P.S- BANKATTA, DISTT- DEVARIA (U.P.) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SARANI (CHAPRA) 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SIWAN ----------- 2. 6.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable under Advertisement No. 1 of 2004. His name has figured in the second gradation list issued on 14.3.2008. His services has been dispensed with after a show cause notice by an order dated 21.1.2009 affirmed in appeal that he was an accused in Criminal Prosecution No. 11 of 2008 under Sections 307/323 of the Penal Code as also under another Criminal Case No. 140 of 2008 under Section 3/4 of the Gunda Act registered on 17.4.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits from an order dated 31.7.2009 of the Additional District Magistrate (Uttar Pradesh) Devaria that the proceedings against him under the Gunda Act have been dropped. He additionally submits that he has also been exonerated in Case No. 11 of 2008. The alternative argument is that in any event of the matter on the date that the petitioner gave his application for appointment under Advertisement No. 1 of 2004, he was not an accused in any criminal case and therefore did not make 2 any misrepresentation. The subsequent accusation have been found to be incorrect and the allegations under Section 307 of the Penal Code being in context of a village dispute. The impugned orders are not sustainable and are therefore fit to be set aside. Counsel for the State from the order dated 31.7.2009 submits that there is another Case No. 20 of 2003 under Sections 323, 304, 506 and 427 of the Penal Code in which he has been acquitted on 15.10.2008. It appears to be perhaps a prosecution prior to the application of the petitioner for appointment. In this context, it may require examination also of the declaration that had been made by the petitioner in his application form with regard to the same. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping this writ application pending for a counter affidavit. The authorities are required to examine the matters, if the petitioner was an accused in any criminal case on the date that he made his application and whether he made any incorrect representation in his application with regard to the same. This shall be completely independent of any subsequent prosecution of the petitioner after he had submitted his application more so when he has also been exonerated in subsequent prosecution and which therefore cannot be a good ground to uphold the impugned orders. The impugned orders are therefore set aside for 3 the limited purpose of remand to respondent no. 2 to re- examine matters in light of the aforesaid discussion and pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed off. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)