The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs Union of India & Ors. consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee held that giving false information does not behove good of any prudent Armed Forces personnel while replying to the Show Cause Notice when he was already a part of the coveted Force-BSF.
Facts
This petition was filed by the Petitioner praying for issuance of writ of Mandamus for quashing and setting aside the impugned order and dismissal order issued by respondent department. He also prayed to issue a writ of certiorari directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service with effect from his date of dismissal with all consequential benefits.
Procedural History
As per petitioner, he was falsely implicated in an FIR when he was a minor. Without disclosing about FIR, he was appointed as a Constable in the Border Security Force1 and completed his basic training. However, upon coming to know of the FIR during his verification, BSF issued a Show Cause Notice to him. Not finding a satisfactory answer, he was dismissed from service without any pensionary benefits. He also pleaded, the appeal thereagainst was dismissed by Appellate Authority and the revision thereagainst is pending before the appropriate authority.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that as the petitioner was below 18 years of age at the time of incident, he was a ‘juvenile’, the entire proceedings involving arrest and trial must be initiated and decided by the Juvenile Justice Board under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the Act”). Thus, the proceedings against petitioner before any Court of law barring the said Board are vitiated in law. Further, relying upon Section 19 and Section 21 of the Act, it was contended that there was no need for petitioner to disclose information regarding his childhood as there is a specific bar thereunder. Reliance was placed on Mukesh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., Amit v. Union of India & Ors., and Jitender v. Union of India & Ors.
Respondent: It was contended that the petitioner had initially given false information as he did not disclose about the said FIR and its aftereffects and then gave an unsatisfactory response to the Show Cause Notice. Finding the petitioner unlikely to become an efficient member of the Force, respondents dismissed him from service without pensionary benefits.
Observations by the Court
The Bench noted that prior to joining BSF, i.e., while applying for the concerned post in BSF, in response to a specific query in the Form “Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, bound over, interned, externed or otherwise dealt with under any law in Force in India or Outside. If so State particulars?” the petitioner wrote “NO” contained therein. When the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice stating the above, the petitioner once again replied that he was neither aware of any such fact nor had he done any such act, which was found untrue.
It opined that the petitioner was guilty of giving false information, contrary to the factual position and what was within his knowledge. It was hard to believe that the petitioner was unaware as he would certainly have been a party to all those at every stage and providing such false information does not behove good of any prudent civilian like, the petitioner when he was already a part of the coveted Force-BSF.
It further opined that even though the petitioner had protection by virtue of the Act for the nondisclosure made by him, he cannot claim any protection for supplying false information twice. He was duty-bound to truthfully apprise the respondents about the actual true status thereof. Thus, he was rightly held guilty of non-disclosure and wrong disclosure. So, Mukesh Yadav (supra), Amit (supra)and Jitender (supra) wherein it was repeatedly held that a juvenile is entitled to the benefit of Section 19 and Section 21 of the Act and thus non-disclosure qua the pendency of an FIR is not fatal, had no application owing to a different situation in this case.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that neither the Act nor settled position of law hereinabove were of any assistance to the petitioner as they were not applicable and dismissed this petition accordingly.
Case: Anil Kumar vs Union of India & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 2074/2018
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Decided on: 2nd November 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
