Not every non-disclosure of a criminal case is fatal to a government job, the Patna High Court has held, ordering the Bihar Police to accept the joining of a 23-year-old selected as a Sub-Inspector whose candidature was cancelled over a case arising out of a family property dispute.
Patna: The Patna High Court has set aside orders of the Bihar Police cancelling the candidature of a successful Police Sub-Inspector candidate for failing to disclose a pending criminal case in his application form, holding that the case arose out of a trivial property dispute among family members, that proceedings in it had been stayed, and that the candidate was only 23 when he applied [Praduman Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others].
Justice Partha Sarthy allowed the writ petition on October 1, quashing the orders passed by the Deputy Inspector General (Administration) and the Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), and directing the authorities to accept the petitioner’s joining on the post of Sub-Inspector.
The case
The Bihar Police Subordinate Services Commission (BPSSC) issued Advertisement No. 2 of 2023 for 1,275 posts of Police Sub-Inspector. The petitioner, Praduman Kumar of Warisaliganj in Nawada district, cleared the preliminary and mains written examinations and the physical efficiency test, was recommended for appointment, and was allotted Nalanda district for joining.
On verification, it emerged that an FIR, Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 240 of 2022, had been registered against him and others on May 29, 2022 under Sections 448, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted bail two days later, a charge-sheet was filed in June 2022, and cognizance was taken in September 2022. In his 2023 application form, however, he answered “NO” to every question on whether any FIR or criminal case had been registered or was pending against him.
On that basis, the DIG (Administration)-cum-Appointing Authority, Magadh Range, Gaya, cancelled his candidature by an order of December 30, 2024, and the DIG (Personnel) rejected his application for an appointment letter on March 17, 2025. Meanwhile, the High Court, on a separate petition filed by him, had stayed the cognizance order and further proceedings in the criminal case in September 2024.
State: incorrect statement disentitles him
Opposing the plea, the State and the BPSSC argued that although the petitioner had been selected, he had answered the query on criminal cases in the negative even though the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance were all of 2022. In view of the incorrect statement, they submitted, he was rightly not appointed.
Court: no ‘one size fits all’
The Court accepted that there was no dispute that the case was pending when the petitioner filled the form and that he had given an incorrect answer. It then examined the Supreme Court’s decisions on suppression of criminal antecedents, including Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Quoting Ravindra Kumar, the Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s caution against treating every lapse alike:
“Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.”
It also relied on Avtar Singh, where the Supreme Court said:
“Suppression of ‘material’ information presupposes that what is suppressed that ‘matters’ not every technical or trivial matter.”
Applying those principles, the Court identified the special circumstances of the case: the petitioner was 23 when he applied, the FIR arose out of “a trivial property/partition dispute between the agnates,” he was released on bail just two days after the FIR, and the criminal proceedings had been stayed by the High Court. Holding that these facts entitled him to relief, the Court set aside both orders of the DIGs and directed the respondents to accept his joining pursuant to his selection under Advertisement No. 2 of 2023.
Why The Patna High Court Ruling Matters
Cancellation of candidature for non-disclosure of a criminal case is among the most common grievances of selected candidates in police and other uniformed-service recruitment. The Supreme Court’s decisions pull in two directions: they stress that full disclosure is a basic requirement of honest recruitment, while also holding that the employer’s power to cancel must be exercised reasonably and with regard to the nature of the case. The ruling places the petitioner’s case on the second side of that line, giving weight to his youth, the domestic and minor nature of the allegations, and the stay on the criminal proceedings.
The judgment does not hold that suppression is acceptable; the Court expressly recorded that the petitioner gave an incorrect statement. It holds that, on these particular facts, cancellation was not a proportionate response. The criminal case against the petitioner remains pending, and nothing in the judgment is a finding on those allegations.
Case Title: Praduman Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others [CWJC No. 710 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Partha Sarthy, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate P.N. Shahi with Advocates Aryan Singh and Puskar Prashant for the Petitioner; Prashant Kumar, AC to SC-5 for the State; Advocates Sanjay Pandey and Nishant Kumar Jha for the BPSSC