Patna HC upholds dismissal of constable who wrote No on a pending FIR and was acquitted in 2024
A division bench led by Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal by a Bihar police constable removed in 2018. She wrote No on her verification form while a 2017 FIR was pending, and her December 2024 acquittal came too late to help.
A woman constable in Bihar wrote No twice on her police verification form, once to whether she had ever been accused in a criminal case and once to whether any case was pending. A 2017 FIR was then pending against her. The Patna High Court has held that her acquittal in December 2024 does not undo the false answer.
A division bench of Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy dismissed Letters Patent Appeal No. 197 of 2026, filed by Nirmala Kumari of Sheikhpura against the State of Bihar and senior police officials. The Chief Justice wrote the judgment.
The form, the FIR and the notice
Nirmala Kumari was selected as a constable, Constable No. 143, and joined on 1 August 2018. She had submitted a verification form on 5 July 2018. On 11 October 2018 she received a show cause notice saying she had suppressed the pendency of a criminal case.
The form, in Hindi, asked in query 7 whether she had ever been accused in a criminal or civil case or sent to jail. Query 8 asked whether she was in debt or had any criminal case or civil suit pending.
The Chief Justice noted that she answered No to both, and that there was no dispute over how she filled it in.
The case she did not disclose was Barbigha P.S. Case No. 245 of 2017, registered on 20 May 2017 under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Dismissal, and the road to the Single Judge
Her defence was that she filled the form ignorantly, not deliberately, and that its format was not clear. She was dismissed on 17 November 2018, and her appeal to the Appellate Authority was rejected.
She went to the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5331 of 2019, which was disposed of on 8 April 2019 with a direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to decide her appeal quickly. She said no order followed, and she went to the Lok Adalat in M.J.C. No. 2330 of 2019, disposed of on 11 September 2021.
The judgment records that the appellate order was finally passed on 15 May 2019. She challenged it in C.W.J.C. No. 1101 of 2022, which a Single Judge dismissed on 5 January 2026. The intra-court appeal followed.
What the Single Judge had held
The Single Judge relied on Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978. It says a recruit’s verification roll must come back with a report that he has made a truthful statement about his antecedents, and that if his statement is false, he shall be removed from the force.
On the facts, the Single Judge said it was admitted that a criminal case was pending when she filled the form, so the statement was false. He distinguished Avtar Singh v. Union of India, whose paragraph 30(4) deals with cases where a conviction or acquittal was already recorded before the form was filled.
He also relied on Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) for the point that the question is trust. An employer that finds a false declaration at the start of service cannot be forced to keep the employee, he said.
What Avtar Singh lets an employer do
The Single Judge quoted paragraph 30(4) of Avtar Singh. Where a conviction or acquittal was already recorded before the form was filled, and the employer learns of it later, there are three routes. In a trivial case, such as shouting slogans at a young age, the employer may condone the lapse.
Where the conviction is not trivial, the employer may cancel the candidature or end the service. Where the acquittal was on technical grounds, or by benefit of doubt, in a case involving moral turpitude or a serious offence, the employer may weigh the antecedents and decide whether to keep the employee.
He also cited the Supreme Court’s later remark, recalled in Anil Kanwariya, that even where a candidate truthfully discloses a concluded case, the employer can still consider the antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint.
Arguments before the Division Bench
Mr. Pranav Kumar appeared for the constable. He pressed the same grounds, citing paragraph 30(4) of Avtar Singh and seven other rulings, among them Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. (2024). He added that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sheikhpura, acquitted her of all charges on 24 December 2024, which the Single Judge should have weighed.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh appeared for the State. The respondents’ case, as recorded, was that she gave a categorical No to both queries.
The Chief Justice framed the issue narrowly:
“whether the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against her dismissal from service.” (para 13)
Why the acquittal did not help
The Chief Justice said the law on the point is well settled. Here, he observed, the suppression was not made after an acquittal. It came while the case was still pending, when she wrote No.
He noted that the Single Judge had distinguished Avtar Singh. Rule 673(c), which the Single Judge had cited, had a significant bearing on the issue, he said, since it spells out the consequence of furnishing false information.
Why Sonu Kumar did not apply
The appellant leaned on State of Bihar v. Sonu Kumar, a Division Bench ruling in L.P.A. No. 741 of 2025. There, the bench had not disturbed a Single Judge who allowed a similar petition, since the appointing authority had issued the appointment letter despite the concealment and the employee was later acquitted.
The bench called that ruling distinguishable. Here, it said, the appointment was made before the verification form was filled. The criminal case came to the employer’s notice only after inquiries that followed the form, and that led to her dismissal.
What the Supreme Court said recently
The bench set out passages from State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2026. The Supreme Court said that complete disclosure in an application for government employment is rooted in fairness, integrity and public trust, and is:
“not a simple procedural formality” (para 21)
The Supreme Court had also said that non-disclosure may not always be fatal, depending on the offence and surrounding circumstances, but remains a serious lapse. The gravity grows when the non-disclosure is repeated, because it then looks deliberate.
In that case the employee, about 45, pointed to his age, to an affidavit given before cancellation began, and to the District Magistrate’s note on his fitness. The Supreme Court said none of it justified overlooking the concealment. Saying No twice showed intent, it held, and a later acquittal could not benefit him.
The Chief Justice called that judgment clearly applicable. He also cited Yogeeta Chandra v. State of U.P., in which the Supreme Court found no error in the cancellation of a judicial officer’s appointment for non-disclosure. It held that no departmental inquiry under Article 311 was needed, since the termination was not for misconduct.
Limits of an intra-court appeal
The bench recalled that its power in a Letters Patent Appeal is limited. Interference is warranted only for patent illegality, perversity or manifest error of law, it said, and the jurisdiction is:
“primarily corrective in nature” (para 24)
It cited B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh (2006) to say that a Division Bench rarely differs from a Single Judge on facts without cogent reasons. The power must be used with restraint, to correct errors that are apparent and substantial, not to reappraise the whole matter.
Having examined the latest position of law, the bench said the Single Judge’s conclusion, read with Rule 673(c) of the Police Manual, showed no error and no perversity.
Order
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. The Single Judge’s order of 5 January 2026 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 1101 of 2022 stands.
Her dismissal from service stands. Judgment was reserved on 29 September 2026 and pronounced on 5 November 2026.