Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors vs Pradeep Hooda
2012 Latest Caselaw 3051 Del

         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

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show cause notice was withdrawn on 17.06.2011.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.

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

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].

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