Kiran Raj

The Orissa High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed an appeal challenging the removal of a police officer who had failed to disclose pending criminal cases at the time of his appointment. The case was heard by Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo, with the decision rendered on March 6, 2025.

The appellant, Giridhari Bag, was employed as a Sepoy in the Orissa State Armed Police (OSAP), 3rd Battalion, Koraput. During his recruitment process, he was required to declare any pending criminal cases in the verification form. However, it was later discovered that he had failed to disclose four criminal cases pending against him. Based on this omission, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, ultimately leading to his dismissal from service.

The disciplinary authority stated that the appellant had engaged in suppression of material facts, which was deemed an act of misconduct. The appeal against his dismissal was subsequently rejected by the appellate authority, which affirmed that the suppression of criminal cases was a violation of service rules and compromised the integrity required for police personnel. The appellant then challenged this decision before the Orissa High Court, which was heard and dismissed by a learned single judge.

Also Read: Supreme Court Modifies Bombay High Court Order, Awards 75% Back Wages to Wrongfully Dismissed MSRTC Employee, Citing Suppression of Evidence

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Suraj Mohanty, argued that his client had not been given a show-cause notice before the dismissal order was issued, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He further asserted that his client had been acquitted in all four criminal cases before the appellate authority had passed its order and that this acquittal should have been considered a crucial factor in the decision-making process.

Mr. Mohanty relied on the precedent set in S. Naresh Rao v. Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha and Others (WPC (OAC) No. 1058 of 2016), where a similar dismissal had been set aside due to the lack of a show-cause notice. He argued that the same reasoning should apply in the present case.

On the other hand, Government Advocate Mr. K.C. Kar, representing the State, sought an adjournment to provide a detailed response. He submitted that suppression of pending criminal cases was a serious breach of the recruitment process, particularly in law enforcement agencies where integrity and transparency were paramount.

The primary legal question before the court was whether an individual who had concealed pending criminal cases at the time of recruitment, but was later acquitted, could continue in police service.

The court examined the legal principles governing suppression of material facts in government employment, particularly in law enforcement agencies. The judgment referenced Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471], where the Supreme Court outlined the criteria for determining the consequences of suppression of criminal cases. The court noted:

“Suppression of ‘material’ information presupposes that what is suppressed ‘matters,’ not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of an employee.”

The court also cited Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2015 AIR SCW 483), where the Supreme Court considered the nature of an acquittal as a mitigating factor. However, the Orissa High Court noted that not all acquittals carry the same weight. The appellant, in this case, had been acquitted in some instances due to the lack of substantial evidence, rather than an outright exoneration based on merit.

The judgment examined the nature of the four criminal cases against the appellant:

1. Sessions Case No. 3/4 of 2002: The appellant was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the CrPC on the ground of benefit of doubt rather than a conclusive finding of innocence.

2. R. Case No. 234 of 2001 (T.R. No. 309/2003): The case involved allegations that the appellant obstructed police officers while they attempted to apprehend him at a marriage function. The court dismissed the case due to lack of corroborative evidence.

3. Two additional cases: The court accepted that these cases were disposed of as honourable acquittals, following the precedent set in Avtar Singh.

The bench further noted that the Supreme Court had laid down clear guidelines that suppression of serious criminal cases at the time of recruitment cannot be taken lightly, particularly in uniformed services where discipline and trustworthiness are critical. The court observed:

“The representationist was involved as an accused in four heinous crimes during the period from 1999 to 2001. Local verification has revealed that he was a criminal and an antisocial for which he was considered unfit for rendering Police service.”

The court also pointed out that the appellant had declared in his verification roll that he had never been accused in any criminal case, despite having four pending cases at that time. This false declaration was a serious breach of conduct under PMR-673 and Rule-13 of the Orissa Military Police Manual, 1953.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Lease Agreement Encompasses Supplementary Agreement, Directs Composite Arbitration for Contractual Dispute

After considering the submissions, the Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant’s suppression of criminal cases justified his removal from service. The judgment concluded:

“Having gone through impugned judgment and view taken in S. Naresh Rao (supra), we do not have reason to interfere with impugned judgment.”

The court observed that the appellant had been provided with an opportunity to make representations, which were duly considered at the appellate level. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the findings from local verification reports, the court found no reason to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority.

Advocates Representing the Parties

• For the Appellant: Mr. Suraj Mohanty, Advocate

• For the Respondents: Mr. K.C. Kar, Government Advocate

Case Title: Giridhari Bag v. Commandant, Orissa State Armed Police (OSAP), Koraput and Others

Case Number: W.A. No. 1627 of 2023

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha, Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

[Read/Download order]