IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1355 of 2010 Chandradeep Yadav, son of Kumar Yadav r/o Tetariya, PO Dudhal, PS Kasma, District Aurangabad ...........Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government 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, Distt. Aurangabad .........Respondents/Respondents ----------- 02- 19/8/2011 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha for the appellant, and Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal, learned Standing Counsel no.I. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 3593 of 2004, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 16.7.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the petitioner’s dismissal from the post of Constable in the Bihar Police Force has been upheld. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant had submitted his application for appointment as a Constable in the Bihar Police Force. On the date of the application, he was admittedly an accused in Kasma PS Case no.32/93 dated 15.7.1993, 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. The charges were framed under these sections on 10.10.93. The petitioner was appointed. He then joined service as a Constable in the Bihar 2 Police Force, and worked for a few years. He was served with charge- sheet dated 13.6.2000 for suppression of material fact, namely, the charge-sheet against him in the aforesaid criminal case on the date of his application as well as his date of appointment in the Bihar Police Force. The learned enquiry officer submitted an adverse report. Respondent no.4 being the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment dated 31.12.2002, whereafter the appellant was dismissed from service. His memorial before respondent no.3 was also rejected leading to the present writ petition. The same has also been rejected on the ground that the appellant belongs to a uniform service and has to maintain high rate of discipline. Suppression of such a material fact as involvement in such a major criminal case is undoubtedly a ground for dismissal from service, a conclusion with which we entirely agree. The fact that the appellant was subsequently acquitted by the learned trial court does not detract us from the conclusion. 3. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost. ( S K Katriar, J. ) ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. ) mrl