Constable applicant terminated after departmental proceeding for failing to disclose pendency of a criminal case in his application. The court held exoneration in the criminal case did not excuse the non-disclosure and refused to interfere with the dismissal of his writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.709 of 2024 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9013 of 2018
======================================================
Aniket Kumar Singh @ Kundan Kr. @ Kundan Kumar Singh, Son of Naresh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village and Post- Katariya, P.S- Kursaila, DistrictKatihar.
... ... Appellant/s Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 03-09-2024 The petitioner is the appellant in the above case, concerned with the impugned order which refused to interfere with the disqualification of his candidature.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.709 of 2024(2) dt.03-09-2024 2/3
submitted by the Superintendent of Police, it was submitted that Chargesheet No. 41 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013 under Sections 395, 412 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been submitted in Kursaila Police Station Case No. 84 of 2012 and that he was in judicial custody; having been released on bail subsequently. The appellant was proceeded with on the basis of the verification issued from the Superintendent of Police, Katihar and pursuant to departmental proceeding, he was terminated.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.709 of 2024(2) dt.03-09-2024 3/3
police station case in the application filed; which was the reason for his termination. The appearance of the witnesses is not crucial on the admitted facts. The mere contention taken that he was exonerated in the criminal case would not absolve him from the liability of non-disclosure of his involvement in the police station case; while the application under an advertisement was made. The appellant’s termination was not on account of involvement in the police case, but non-disclosure of the pendency of the case in his application.
impugned judgment.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether termination for non-disclosure of pending criminal case in the application was sustainable despite subsequent exoneration.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Aniket Kumar Singh @ Kundan Kr. @ Kundan Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna
The Deputy Inspector General (Central Range), the Appellate Authority, Bihar Military Police, Patna
The Commandant B.M.P.-03 Bodh Gaya
The Deputy Superintendent of Police-Cum-Conducting Officer, B.M.P. 03, Bodh Gaya
K. Vinod Chandran
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
