THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2268/2012 & CM 4860/2012
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Petitioner
versus
PRADEEP HOODA ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr S. P. Sharma with Dr Ashwani Bhardwaj
For the Respondent : Mr Sachin Chauhan
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2458/2011, whereby the respondent's said Original Application had been allowed.
2. The question, once again, for consideration is with regard to the concealment of criminal involvement in the application form as well as in the attestation form submitted by the applicant seeking appointment with the Delhi Police as a Constable (Executive). This issue has been dealt with WP (C) No.2268/2012 Page 1 of 5 by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar: (2011) 4 SCC 644. Based on that decision alone the respondent would have a strong case. However, in the present case, the facts are somewhat different inasmuch as the respondent was a juvenile at the time the criminal case was registered in which he was allegedly involved and, this makes the case of the respondent even stronger.
3. The respondent had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) with the Delhi Police on 18.11.2009 and he submitted an attestation form on 17.05.2010 in neither of which he disclosed his involvement in FIR 190/2006 which was registered under Sections 398/307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Sonipat, Haryana. Because of the fact that he had not mentioned about the criminal involvement, which was subsequently found at the stage of verification, a show cause notice had been issued to the respondent on 04.02.2011 requiring him to show cause as to why his services ought not to be terminated. However, the said show cause notice was withdrawn on 17.06.2011. Subsequently, on 30.06.2011, the services of the respondent were terminated under Rule 5 (1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
WP (C) No.2268/2012 Page 2 of 5
4. Being aggrieved by such termination, which admittedly was occasioned by the said concealment, the respondent filed the said Original Application which was ultimately allowed by virtue of the impugned order.
5. The Tribunal, while considering the case of the respondent, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and also took note of the fact that the respondent was a juvenile on the date on which the said FIR had been registered. The respondent had also been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board on 24.11.2006, that is, much prior to the date of his submitting the application and attestation form. Taking note of various provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the Tribunal decided in favour of the respondent. In particular, the Tribunal referred to Section 19 (1) of the said Act which stipulated that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of the said Act, shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Section 19 (2) may also be noticed inasmuch as it stipulates that the Juvenile Justice Board is required to make an order WP (C) No.2268/2012 Page 3 of 5 directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.
6. In other words, even where a juvenile is found to have committed an offence, he shall not suffer any disqualification and even the records are to be obliterated after a specified period of time. The intention of the Legislature is absolutely clear that insofar as juveniles are concerned, their criminal record is not to stand in their way in their future lives.
7. The present case is, of course, one where a juvenile was tried and has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board and, therefore, in any event, the respondent could not have suffered any disqualification whatsoever. In these circumstances, the action on the part of the petitioner to have terminated his services merely because the respondent had previously been involved in an FIR which had been registered prior to his making the application, is not warranted by law. Yesterday also, we had come across a similar case of a juvenile and had arrived at a similar conclusion in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v. Sumit Kumar [WP(C) 2671/2012]. WP (C) No.2268/2012 Page 4 of 5
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that one of the grounds for terminating the services of the respondent was that he had concealed the factum of his criminal involvement in his application form as also in the attestation form. Insofar as juveniles are concerned, even this plea does not have any merit. This is so because, as we have pointed out above, even in the case of conviction the criminal records as regards a juvenile are to be obliterated. Therefore, the requirement of law is that once a juvenile has been tried and, in particular, where he has been acquitted, there is no question of him carrying any hangover of his past. Therefore, the fact that the respondent did not mention his criminal involvement cannot, in law, be regarded as concealment, when there is to be no record of it.
9. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J MAY 08, 2012 SR WP (C) No.2268/2012 Page 5 of 5