In a quiet but tense courtroom at the Patna High Court on Friday, Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a detailed judgment in a long-running service dispute involving a dismissed constable aspirant. The matter, which dates back more than a decade, turned on one key question: Can hiding a criminal case cost a government job, even if the person was later acquitted?
Background
The petitioner, Utpal Kant Prasad Verma, had applied for the post of constable under a 2004 recruitment advertisement. Things seemed smooth until an FIR-Bihta P.S. Case No. 301/2005-was lodged against him a year later, involving allegations of assault and other offences. Although he was eventually acquitted in 2009, trouble started when he filled his character verification form in 2007 but did not mention the pending criminal case.
During verification, the authorities discovered the omission. The Commandant of BMP-14 dismissed him in 2007, the DIG upheld the dismissal in 2011, and even the DGP rejected his memorial in 2012. Frustrated, he moved the High Court seeking reinstatement with all service benefits.
Court’s Observations
The hearing saw detailed arguments from both sides. The petitioner’s counsel insisted the omission was not deliberate. According to him, the FIR had been registered after the initial application for recruitment, so the candidate believed he did not need to report it. He also leaned on Supreme Court rulings where courts had shown leniency for “fear-based” nondisclosures.
But the State held firm. Its counsel argued that the petitioner knew the case was pending at the time he filled the verification form and still chose silence. The dismissal, they claimed, was fully in line with Rule 673(c) of the Bihar Police Manual, which requires removal if a candidate’s character statement is found false.
Justice Sarthy took note of both sides and the precedents cited, but pointed out that the rule itself leaves little room for ambiguity. In a crucial paragraph, the bench observed, “If the character of the man is reported to be bad or his statement false, he shall be removed from the force.”
The judge further remarked that the petitioner’s explanation-claiming confusion about which cases needed disclosure-didn’t sit well with the mandatory nature of the verification roll. The Court also noted that despite his eventual acquittal, the issue here was not guilt or innocence, but truthfulness during verification, which is treated as foundational in police recruitment.
At one point, the bench commented, “The discovery of the pendency of criminal case led to the respondents passing the order of dismissal… the Court finds no illegality in the orders of the respondents.”
Decision
After reviewing the record and relevant rules, the High Court declined to interfere. The judgment concluded that the petitioner had indeed suppressed a critical fact, and the authorities acted strictly within the framework of Rule 673(c).
The Court held that the cited Supreme Court decisions did not apply in this factual scenario and ultimately dismissed the writ petition. With that, the case-lingering since 2013-came to an end.
Case Title: Utpal Kant Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar & Others
Case No.: CWJC No. 20946 of 2013
Case Type: Civil Writ Jurisdiction (Service Matter – Dismissal for Suppression of Facts)
Decision Date: 21 November 2025
