IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.266 of 2010 RAJU PRASAD, S/O LATE RAMESHWA PRASAD, R/O VILL BIHAT GURUDASPUR GACHHI TOLA, P.S.BARAUNI, F.C.I., DISTT- BEGUSARAI ------------ Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL PERSONNEL, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SUPEINTENDENT OF POLICE, BEGUSARAI. --------- Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar For the Respondents :- Mr. P.K. Verma (AAG-XI) ----------- 2 11.02.2010 I.A. No. 1326 of 2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned in this application seeking condonation of delay of six days in filing of the appeal, the delay of six days in filing of this appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 1326 of 2010 is accordingly allowed. L.P.A. No. 266 of 2010 Having condoned the delay, this Court with the consent of the parties is also inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits at the stage of admission itself. 2 By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ application C.W.J.C. No. 13845 of 2009 wherein a prayer was made to quash the order dated 9.9.2009 refusing the appointment of the appellant writ petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub- inspector of Police on the ground that he had suppressed material information as with regard to the pendency of the criminal case. Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner, had tried to impress upon us that there was no material suppression in the police verification form submitted by the appellant writ petitioner, inasmuch as, in column no.7, an information was sought as to whether the candidate concerned had been made accused in any civil/criminal case and had also undergone any imprisonment and since the petitioner was never sentenced in any criminal case, his declaration that he had never been sentenced and had undergone imprisonment could not be held to be a false declaration. This Court has carefully gone into the materials on record and from the same, it is found that when the 3 petitioner in course of seeking his appointment on the post of Sub-inspector of Police had submitted his character verification form, its column no.7 requiring him to give information as to whether he was accused in a criminal case or had undergone custody in a criminal case, filled up by him on 8.7.2008 had contained a false declaration, inasmuch as, on that day, he was an accused in Barouni F.C.I. P.S. Case No. 534 of 2002 lodged for an offence under Section 341/323/447/504/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)A/26/35/27 of the Arms Act. The learned single Jude, in fact, has also noticed this aspect at some length in the impugned order while dismissing the writ application wherein it has been found that the judgment of acquittal of the appellant writ petitioner in the criminal case was passed subsequent to such declaration on 30.7.2008. Thus, there would be no doubt that the date on which the appellant writ petitioner had submitted his verification form denying himself to be an accused in any criminal case, he had sought to conceal the valid information as with regard to the pendency of the criminal case. 4 In that view of the matter, when the learned single Judge has also considered the facts and law on the subject in a graphic manner while holding that the appellant writ petitioner had made a wrong/false declaration with regard to his having accused in a criminal case, there would be no scope for us to take a different view. We would also concur with the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radhakrishnan Versus Director General of Police & Ors. reported in 2008(1)SCC 660 wherein the Apex Court in almost similar circumstance relating to securing appointment in a uniformed service had held that the person seeking appointment in such service was required to be completely honest in making his declaration and if any valid information was withheld by him or was found to be false, that by itself was sufficient to deny such person’s appointment in the police service. Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, however, had made a Valliant effort to distinguish the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radhakrishnan (supra) by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar reported in AIR 5 2008 SC 1083. This Court, however on perusal of the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) would find that the requirement of disclosure in the verification form was altogether different, inasmuch as, two information which were sought to be given by the candidates was as to whether they had ever been arrested or been convicted by the court for any offence. It was in this factual background as quoted in paragraph no.3 of the judgement that the Apex Court had held that Dinesh Kumar on account of his voluntary surrender before the court could not have been held to be arrested and in view of the judgment of his acquittal, also not convicted. Thus, under those circumstances, the Apex Court had upheld the claim of Dinesh Kumar (supra) for his appointment by recording that he had not made any false declaration. Mr. Sinha, however, before us has not disputed that the information sought to be disclosed in the verification form was altogether different, inasmuch as, in column no.7 of the verification form, it was to be stated by the candidate as to whether he had been made accused in a 6 criminal case or had undergone custody in connection with any criminal case. There being no doubt that the appellant writ petitioner was made accused in a criminal case, his declaration in negative while filling up the verification form obviously amounted to suppression of fact, inasmuch as, on 8.7.2008 he was very much an accused in the criminal case being Barouni F.C.I. P.S. Case No. 534 of 2002 in which charge-sheet has also been submitted against him. It would be immaterial that subsequently the appellant writ petitioner was acquitted of criminal charge by the trial court on 30.7.2008 in Sessions Trial No. 469 of 2007. It is also found from Annexure-5, the judgment of the trial court itself that the First Information Report naming the appellant writ petitioner as an accused for various offences under Penal Code and Arms Act was filed on 23.12.2002 wherein the police had also submitted charge-sheet against him on 23.9.2005 and after commitment of the case on 28.9.2007, charges were framed against him on 7.5.2008 in Sessions Trial No. 469 of 2007. Thus, the appellant writ petitioner was an accused in a criminal case as on 8.7.2008 the date on which he had written “No” against the column 7 no.7 of the verification form soliciting information as to whether he was an accused in a criminal case or had undergone jail custody in connection with any criminal case. Therefore, only because he was subsequently acquitted of the charge on 30th July, 2008 would not bring his case anywhere near to the facts of the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) specially when even the information sought in Haryana Police Service did not require Dinesh Kumar to have divulged any information as with regard to being an accused in a criminal case. Thus, it was in altogether different facts and circumstances of the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra), that the Apex Court had held that rejection of his candidature by the authorities on account of pendency of the criminal case could not be held to be justified when he had made no concealment as with regard to the two information, namely, of his being arrested and/or being convicted by the court was correctly stated by him in negative. It is this subtle but yet a very clear line of distinction on facts of the present case as with regard to the requirement of giving information in the verification form in the case in hand of the appellant writ petitioner vis-à-vis 8 the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) which would make the judgment of the Apex Court of Dinesh Kumar (supra) inapplicable in the case of appellant. Thus, once we have reached to the same conclusion as was also arrived by the learned single Judge that the appellant writ petitioner had concealed his information as with regard to being an accused in a criminal case, we have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal while approving the reasonings recorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. That being so, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. Rishi (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)