# Raj Kumar & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 429
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 31858 of 2017
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-47738
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Civil Law- Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act, 2015- Section 24- From a
perusal of the facts as mentioned by the
Trial court it is evident that the incident in
question leading to the lodging of the FIR
was of 31.10.2003, when the petitioner
no. 1 Rajkumar was only nine years old.
The court had therefore acquitted the
accused of the charges levelled against
them-It is evident from perusal of Section
24 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 that in
all cases except cases related to heinous
offences, a child in conflict with the law
would not suffer any disqualification in
the future and for such purposes records
relating to the case had to be destroyed
after passage of a specified period and in
the manner as prescribed under the Rules
-Even if a Juvenile is convicted under the
provisions of 2015 Act such conviction is
not liable to be viewed as disqualification
which may otherwise and ordinarily stand
attached upon a person being convicted-
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The petitioner no.1 being a juvenile at the
time
of
criminal
prosecution
being
concluded
against
him
and
having
culminated in acquittal deserves to be
reinstated in service, the order dated
01.03.2017 is quashed.

Implication in a criminal case of a child in
conflict will law will not be a ground to disentitle
or disqualify the person in future. (Para 28, 32)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Case law/Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,996 of 51,726. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39996 for what follows._

10 All. Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
429
of pension, his all service period has to be
considered, if it is in accordance with Rule
3(8) of Rules, 1961 and there cannot be any
other interpretation for the same. Therefore,
apart from many other grounds, this alone
ground is sufficient to grant full pensionary
benefits to the petitioner considering his
continuous
service
started
from
his
appointment on the post of Cooperative
Supervisor to his superannuation on the
post of Assistant Development Officer
(Cooperative). There is also no dispute on
this point that once petitioner is not at fault,
he is fully entitled for all pensionary and
other retiral benefits from the date his
juniors were promoted. In present case,
petitioner has not been promoted due to
want of A.C.R., and his service was not
regularised, but later on he has been
promoted/regularized from a later date
from
which
his
juniors
were
promoted/regularized is bad and cannot be
accepted. It is required on the part of
respondent-authorities to grant notional
promotion as well as regularization from
the
date
his
juniors
were
awarded
promotion and regularization.

20. Therefore, under such facts of the
case as well as law laid down by this Court,
impugned order dated 07.01.2021 is bad
and hereby set aside.

21. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed.

22. No order as to costs.

23. Respondent-authorities are
directed to grant full pensionary and other
retiral benefits to the petitioner considering
his full service i.e. from the date of
appointment to the date of superannuation
as qualifying service for grant of retiral
benefits. Further, petitioner shall also be
entitled for all other financial benefits,
which have been granted to his juniors
treating
him
notionally
promoted/regularized from the date his
juniors were promoted/regularized.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 429
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 31858 of 2017

Raj Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Tejasvi Misra, Sri R.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, S.C., Sri Shiv
Kumar Pal

Civil Law- Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act, 2015- Section 24- From a
perusal of the facts as mentioned by the
Trial court it is evident that the incident in
question leading to the lodging of the FIR
was of 31.10.2003, when the petitioner
no. 1 Rajkumar was only nine years old.
The court had therefore acquitted the
accused of the charges levelled against
them-It is evident from perusal of Section
24 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 that in
all cases except cases related to heinous
offences, a child in conflict with the law
would not suffer any disqualification in
the future and for such purposes records
relating to the case had to be destroyed
after passage of a specified period and in
the manner as prescribed under the Rules
-Even if a Juvenile is convicted under the
provisions of 2015 Act such conviction is
not liable to be viewed as disqualification
which may otherwise and ordinarily stand
attached upon a person being convicted-
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The petitioner no.1 being a juvenile at the
time
of
criminal
prosecution
being
concluded
against
him
and
having
culminated in acquittal deserves to be
reinstated in service, the order dated
01.03.2017 is quashed.

Implication in a criminal case of a child in
conflict will law will not be a ground to disentitle
or disqualify the person in future. (Para 28, 32)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Case law/Judgements relied upon:-

1. Harendra Pawar Vs St. of UP & ors. 2012 (4)
ADJ 488"

2. T. S. Vasudevan Naiyar Vs Director of Vikram
Sarabhai Space Centre (1998 supplement SCC
795)";

3. GNCT Vs Robin Singh 2015 (118) DLT 168

4. Kaptan Yadav Vs U.O.I & ors.; Special Appeal
No. 2435 of 2011(Alld.)

5. Ramakant Prasad & ors. Vs U.O.I &
ors.,decided on 07.01.2013

6. Krishna Pratap Yadav Vs U.O.I & ors.,Special
Appeal No. 2510 of 2011(Alld.)

7. Jainendra Singh Vs St. of UP & ors. 2012 (8)
SCC 748

8. Shivam Maurya Vs St. of UP & ors. 2020 (5) ADJ

9. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I & ors. 2016 (8) SCC 471

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by
two writ petitioners challenging orders of
discharge dated 1 March 2017and 18
February
2017
respectively
and
for
issuance of a mandamus commanding the
respondents to reinstate the petitioners into
service with all consequential benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that
in pursuance of Advertisement number
1/2011 issued by the Respondent No.3 for
recruitment on the post of Constable (GD)
in Railway Protection Special Force
(RPSF) the petitioners applied and were
selected.
Before
their
training
and
appointment the petitioners had to submit
their attestation forms where in column 12
they had to disclose their character and
antecedents and as to whether any criminal
case was pending against them or whether
they had ever been tried. To this the
petitioners answered in the negative as at
that point of time no criminal case was
pending against them. During the course of
training, police verification reports of the
petitioners were sought from the District
Magistrates of their respective districts. In
the police verification reports it came out
that
FIR
was
lodged
against
them
individually but they were acquitted.
However, since they had not disclosed this
fact in the attestation form both the
petitioners were discharged from their
service .

3. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
no.1,
Rajkumar
had
submitted
his
attestation form on 22 June 2014 wherein
he did not disclose his character and
antecedents in Column 12 with regard to
Case Crime No. 131 of 2003 under
Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. He was sent for
training at ITBP Training Centre AALO,
West Slang, Arunachal Pradesh on 30
October 2014. In the police verification
report sought from district Allahabad it was
informed that he was prosecuted but
acquitted from the Court of ACJM.
However, as a result of this verification
report he was discharged while undergoing
training 31 March 2015. The Respondents
had failed to appreciate that the petitioner
10 All. Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
431
no.1 was cleanly acquitted from criminal
charges by an order dated 24 September
2007 by the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate. At the time of filing of
his application form and at the time of
signing of the attestation form no criminal
case was pending. Also, petitioner no.1 was
a juvenile at the time when the FIR was
lodged against him as he was just nine
years old. He was tried in a Regular Court
instead of by Juvenile Justice Board and he
was 13 years old when he was cleanly
acquitted by the Court of ACJM.

4. The petitioner no.1 had moved this
Court and by way of Writ Petition No.
57707/2015, "Rajkumar vs. Union of
India and Others" and this court by an
order dated 29 November 2016 had
quashed the discharge order and remitted
the matter to the respondents for fresh
consideration of his candidature in the light
of the law laid down by the Supreme Court
in the case of Avtar Singh. In pursuance of
such order passed by the High Court the
petitioner no.1 was called for personal
hearing on 28 February 2017 but the
Respondent No.4 in his order dated 1
March 2017 again proceeded to cancel the
candidature of the petitioner on the ground
of intentional suppression of material facts
at the time of filling up of the attestation
form.

5. It has been argued that the nature of
the offence of which the petitioner had
been accused along with his family
members was trivial involving minor
punishment. The petitioner was acquitted
not as an outcome of benefit of doubt but
he was honourably exonerated. This Court
in its Order dated 29.11.2016 had directed
the Respondent No.4 to adjudge the
suitability of the candidate with reference
to the nature of suppression, and the nature
of the criminal case. Instead of considering
whether the petitioner no.1 was suitable for
appointment to the post of Constable the
respondent had acted mechanically by
holding the petitioner no.1 unfit for the post
alleging that he had furnished an affidavit
stating incorrect facts at the time of his
recruitment.

6. In the case of petitioner no.2,
Sasikala, she had submitted her attestation
form on 22.06.2014, where she did not
disclose in column number 12 Case Crime
No. 128A/11/2003 under sections 147, 148,
452, 338, 323, 504, 506 IPC which was
lodged after filling up of the application
form and was concluded before the
attestation form was filed. The petitioner
no.2 joined her training at Himachal
Pradesh Police Training Centre Palampur,
on 17.11.2014. In the police verification
report sent from the office of District
Magistrate Gorakhpur it was disclosed that
she had been tried and acquitted by the
Court. However, she was discharged from
training
on
this
ground
alone
on
26.05.2015. Aggrieved by the order of
discharge dated 26.05.2015, the petitioner
filed Writ Petition No. 45917 of 2015,
"Shashikala Singh vs. Union of India and
Others". This court by its order dated
29.11.2016 quashed the discharge letter and
remitted the matter back to the respondents
for fresh consideration of her candidature
in the light of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case. In
pursuance of such order passed by this
Court the petitioner no.2 was called for
personal hearing on 17.01.2017. After
hearing her the respondent no.5 in his order
dated 18 February 2017 reiterated the
position and canceled her candidature on
the ground of intentional suppression of
material facts at the time of filling up of the
attestation form.
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
had filed her application form in March,
2011 whereas the FIR was lodged against
her on 13.04.2011. She was acquitted by
the competent court on 21.01.2014 and
therefore it cannot be said that any case
was pending at the time of filling up of the
application form or at the time of signing of
the attestation form by her. It cannot
therefore be said that the petitioner no.2
had resorted to suppression of material
facts. Moreover, petitioner no.2 being a
female never went to the Court for pursuing
the case. The case had been slapped on the
entire family out of spite, and therefore the
elders of the family had pursued it at their
end. The petitioner no.2 was acquitted not
by giving her benefit of doubt but it was an
honourable exoneration from all charges
levelled against her.

8. It has been argued that the case of
the petitioners are squarely covered by law
laid down by this Court in "Harendra
Pawar vs. State of UP and Others 2012 (4)
ADJ 488" where this Court had observed
that -

"..mere involvement in a criminal case
is not an impediment for appointment to the
post
of
constable.
Moreover,
stigma
attached to a person is obliterated on
acquittal and as such the applicant cannot
be
denied
appointment.
Moreover
a
conviction
results
in
ineligibility
for
appointment in government service but
since the applicant had already been
acquitted of the criminal charges he is
eligible for appointment...".

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has also placed reliance upon three Judges
Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of "T. S. Vasudevan Naiyar vs. Director
of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (1998
supplement
SCC
795)";
whereby
the
Supreme Court had set aside order cancelling
the offer of appointment of the applicant
made because he had not disclosed that
during emergency he had been convicted for
having
shouted
slogans
against
the
government on one occasion.

10. It has been argued that in the case of
"Dnyaneshwar Kure vs. Union of India"; the
Bombay High Court by an Order dated
06.05.2016 had quashed the discharge order
and remitted the matter to the respondents
with a direction that -

"....the respondent no.4 shall objectively
assess the suitability of the petitioner for
continuance of the petitioner in the services
on the basis of verification report received
from the Superintendent of Police Nanded,
and more particularly having concern to the
acquittal recorded in favour of the petitioner
in the criminal case against him and take
appropriate decision as expeditiously as
possible."

11. It has been argued that against the
orders passed by the Bombay High Court on
6.05.2016, SLP bearing no. 24195 of 2016
was filed by the respondents but it was
dismissed by the Supreme Court on
02.01.2017. Hence the order passed by the
Bombay High Court was affirmed and in
pursuance of such orders, the respondents had
reinstated Dnyaneshwar Kure as Constable
RPSF ,having found him to be fit, though at
the time when he had been initially appointed
and sent for training he had been facing
criminal trial and was acquitted later on and
his character was not unblemished at the time
of filling up of the attestation form.

12. The learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
also
referred
to
the
10 All. Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
433
judgement rendered in the case of GNCT
vs. Robin Singh 2015 (118) DLT 168;
where the Delhi High Court had observed
that every wrong information may not
necessarily be a deception.

"A person may be wrong, but under a
bona fide belief that he is right, he
furnishes the information. This would not
be deception though erroneous, the forming
of bona fide belief that once he stands
acquitted in a criminal case, the same is
not required to be mentioned, since the
acquittal puts him in the same position as if
no FIR had ever been lodged against him.
Thus a person under a mistaken legal belief
writes or omits to mention something, the
charge of deception as lead in the
allegation is not sustainable".

13. It has been argued on the basis of
said judgement of the Delhi High Court
that the application forms and affidavits
were filed by the petitioners under a bona
fide belief that only if a criminal case is
pending, or a person is convicted, the same
is required to be mentioned. Therefore the
order discharging the services of the
petitioners
on
the
sole
ground
of
concealment of their having been tried in
the distant past was absolutely unjustified
and illegal.

14. In the counter affidavit filed by
the Respondents it has been stated that the
petitioners had applied for the post of
Constable
in
Railway
Protection
Force/Railway Protection Special Force
under Advertisement No. 1/2011. After
qualifying in all selections that were held
the petitioners were allotted the respective
Zonal Railways and sent for initial training
subject to police verification of their
character and antecedents. The District
Magistrates of the respective districts had
informed about the lodging of criminal
cases against the petitioners under different
Sections of the IPC and their acquittal on
different dates.

Consequently,
the
Chief
Security
Commissioner
had
discharged
the
petitioners from training on the ground of
suppression of facts in the attestation form.
Consequent to the Writ Petitions being filed
by them and their initial order of discharge
being quashed, the Zonal Chief Security
Commissioner had given personal hearing
to the petitioners individually and passed
fresh orders which are challenged in the
writ petition.

15. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for Respondents that in paragraph
9 note (f) of the Advertisement No.1/2011
it had been clearly mentioned that :-

"candidates found to be having an
adverse report on their antecedents and
character may not be appointed in RPF
including RPSF. False declaration is an
offence under the law and will lead to
disqualification of the applicant, institution
of criminal case and also dismissal from
service, if appointed".

The petitioners being aware of the
warning mentioned in the advertisement,
had filled up their application forms. Even
in the attestation form in paragraph 1 and 2
of the attestation form it was clearly stated
that :-

"if detained, arrested, prosecuted,
bound down, fined , Convicted, debarred,
acquitted et cetera subsequent to the
completion and submission of this form, the
details
should
be
communicated
immediately to the authority to whom the
attestation has been sent earlier, failing
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which it will be deemed to be a suppression
of factual information."

In paragraph number-3 of the attestation
form it had also been mentioned that -

"If the fact, that false information has been
furnished or that there has been a suppression
of any factual information in the attestation
form, comes to notice at any time during the
service of a person, his service would be liable
to be terminated".

16. It has been pointed out that in the
counter affidavit the Respondents have also
mentioned Rule 52 of the RPF Rules 1987
which relate to verification. Rule 52.1 provides
that

"As soon as the recruit is selected but
before he is formally appointed to the force, his
character and antecedent shall be got verified
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
the Central Government from time to time".

Under Rule 52.2, it is provided that
"where after verification, recruit is not found
suitable for the Force, he shall not be appointed
as a member of the Force."

17. It has been submitted in the counter
affidavit that the orders discharging the
petitioners have been passed by the Zonal Chief
Security Commissioner on the ground of
suppression of facts in the attestation form. The
petitioners have deliberately suppressed vital
information of criminal cases having been
lodged against them and they being tried before
the competent court.

In the attestation form under column
12, the following information was sought
from the applicant/petitioners: -

(A) Have you ever been arrested?

(B) Have you ever been prosecuted?

(C) Have you ever been kept under
detention?

(D) Have you ever been bound down?

(E) Have you ever been fined by a
court of law?

(F) Have you ever been convicted by a
court of law?

(G) Have you ever been debarred from
any examination or restricted by any
university
or
any
other
educational
authority/institution?

(H) Have you ever been debarred
/disqualified
by
any
public
service
commission/staff selection commission for
any of their examination/selection?

(I) Is any case pending against you in
any university or any other educational
authority/institution at the time of filling up
this form?

(G) Is any case pending against you in
any court of law at the time of filling of this
form ?

(K) Whether discharge/ expelled/
withdrawn from any training institution
under the government or otherwise?

(L) If the answer to any of the above
mentioned questions is "yes" give full
particulars
of
the
case/arrest/
detention/fine/conviction/punishment/acqui
ttal et cetera as the case maybe, and/or
name
the
university/court/educational
authority, etc, where any case is pending at
the time of filling up of this form.

18. It has been submitted that the
petitioners had suppressed information of
the prosecution in the criminal cases as
required under column 12 of the attestation
form. No matter whether the petitioners
were acquitted or not and no criminal cases
were pending against them at the time of
filling up of the attestation form, since the
attestation form required disclosure of past
prosecution as well, the Zonal Chief
10 All. Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
435
Security Commissioner has rightly held
that
the
petitioners
had
deliberately
suppressed Vital/factual information Of the
prosecution.
The
Railway
Protection
Force/Railway Protection Special Force is a
paramilitary force of the Union and the
petitioner's conduct has become doubtful at
the initial stage itself. Honesty and integrity
which is of utmost importance for the post
applied for, cannot be disregarded. The
respondent no.4 four has rightly passed the
orders impugned in observance of Rule
67.2 of the RPF Rules 1987 after giving
due
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
petitioners. Also, it is not the question of
stigma of registration of criminal case
against the petitioners and their acquittal
therein, it is a question of deliberate
suppression of information with regard to
character and antecedents which has led to
the competent authority coming to the
conclusion that the petitioners are not
suitable to be appointed as Constables in
RPF/RPSF.Moreover the petitioners have
not been discharged from service. They
were only sent for training as selected
candidates.
They
were
not
formally
appointed as Constables.

The respondents have emphasized the
observations made by the Supreme Court in
the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
in paragraph 30.1 where it was observed
that - "information given to the employer by
a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of criminal case,
whether before or after entering into
service must be true and there should be no
suppression or false mention of required
information."

Although it is not denied by the
petitioners that they were prosecuted before
they filed their attestation forms but they
have deliberately suppressed vital/critical
information from their employers which
amounts to wilful misrepresentation and
giving of false affidavit and misleading the
administration at the very beginning of
their career in a Disciplined Armed Forces
of the Union. Copies of attestation forms
submitted by the petitioners have been filed
also as Annexures to the Counter Affidavit.

19. The Respondents have referred to
judgement rendered by this Court on
24.02.2015 in Writ Petition No. 27584 of
2009, "Kaptan Yadav vs. Union of India
and Others"; and in Special Appeal No.
2435 of 2011, "Ramakant Prasad and
Others vs. Union of India and Others"
decided on 07.01.2013; and Special Appeal
No. 2510 of 2011, "Krishna Pratap Yadav
vs. Union of India and Others" decided on
03.04.2014.

20. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by
the petitioners they have referred to orders
passed by the respondents themselves in
the case of one Devendra Singh who had
been tried and acquitted under Section 323,
324, 294, 336, 506 (B), and Section 452
IPC on 12.05.2017; speaking order passed
in the case of one Bali Ram Kumar who
had been tried and acquitted under Section
147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324,504, 506, 427
IPC on 08.06.2017; and in the case of one
Mohit Kumar who had been tried and
acquitted under Section 379 IPC on
13.05.2017 and in the case of one Manish
Kumar who had been tried under Section
323, 341, 354 and 34 IPC and who was also
reinstated on 12.05.2017.

In all such cases the respondents had
considered the representation of the
candidates and come to the conclusion that
at the time of filling up of attestation form
the character of the candidate was
unblemished. Since the candidate was
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acquitted much earlier he did not record so
in the attestation form. It was a fact that he
had made an incorrect statement of having
never been involved in any criminal case
in his life but the respondents had
observed that they had reason to believe
that it must have been done in good faith
since the candidate was acquitted in the
criminal case long before filling up of the
attestation form. The action of the
candidate being in good faith, they were
reinstated in service. All such orders have
been passed by the Inspector General cum
Chief Security Commissioner, Railway
Protection
Force,
New
Delhi
,after
remitting of the matter by the High Court
to him for reconsideration.

21. The Division Bench of this Court
in Ramakant Prasad and Others was
considering the order passed by the Chief
Security Commissioner, RPF/RPSF, where
the appellants had filed their attestation
forms when criminal cases were pending
against them without disclosing such
pendency though acquitted subsequently
,and the offences in which they were
involved were of trivial nature. The
Division Bench had observed that the
appellants had started their career with
falsehood, preventing the authority from
verifying the character as also their
suitability/eligibility for appointment. A
candidate is expected to answer the
questions without any misrepresentation,
suppression or false statement. Such
falsehood would demonstrate a conduct and
character not befitting of a uniformed
Force. Neither the gravity of the offences
nor the ultimate acquittal is the prime
consideration for their entitlement in
service.

The Division Bench in Ramakant
Prasad (Supra) observed -

"The point for consideration is not
that
the
petitioners/appellants
were
involved in trivial criminal cases wherein
they have been acquitted prior to the
furnishing of details or prior to induction in
service. When the question put to them was
whether the criminal case was pending
against the petitioners/Appellants or they
were cleared of the charges or acquitted
and the answer was given in the negative, it
would amount to suppression of material
factual information holding them liable to
be prosecuted for the act of perjury and
fraud and the employer is empowered to
remove them from service on the ground of
furnishing false information about their
involvement in criminal cases...".

22. In Krishna Pratap Yadav, a
Division
Bench
of
this
Court
was
considering
reliance
placed
upon
judgement rendered by the Supreme Court
in the case of Commissioner of Police and
Others vs. Sandeep Kumar 2011 (2)
UPLBEC 1497; by the counsel for the
Appellant. Counsel for the appellant had
pointed out that the Appellant honestly
disclosed the pendency of criminal case
against him at the time of filling up of the
attestation form. However the Division
Bench relied upon observations made by
the Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police New Delhi and
another vs. Meher Singh 2013 (7) SCC
685; which reiterated the principle which
was laid down in Delhi Administration vs.
Sushil Kumar 1996 (11 ) SCC 605;
Commissioner of Police vs. Dhaval Singh
1999 (1) SCC 246; Ghurey Lal vs. State of
UP 2008 (10) SCC 450. The Supreme
Court had observed in paragraph nos. 34,
35, 36 and 37 as under:-

"34. The respondents are trying to
draw mileage from the fact that in their
10 All. Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
437
application and/or attestation form they
have disclosed their involvement in a
criminal case. We do not see how this fact
improves their case. Disclosure of these
facts in the application/attestation form is
an essential requirement. An aspirant is
expected
to
state
these
facts
honestly.Honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of the police force. The
respondents should not therefore expect to
score any brownie points because of this
disclosure. Besides, this has no relevance to
the point in issue. It bears repetition to
state that while deciding whether a person
against whom a criminal case was
registered and who was later acquitted or
discharged should be appointed to a post in
the police force what is relevant is the
nature of the offence, the extent of his
involvement, whether the acquittal was a
clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving
benefit of doubt because the witnesses
turned hostile or because of some serious
flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity
of such person to indulge in similar
activities in future. This decision in our
opinion, can only be taken by the Screening
Committee created for that purpose by the
Delhi police. If the Screening Committee's
decision is not malafide or actuated by
extraneous considerations, then it cannot
be questioned.

35. The police force is a disciplined
force. It shoulders the great responsibility
of maintaining law and order and public
order in society. People repose great faith
and confidence in it. It must be worthy of
that confidence. A candidate wishing to
join the police force must be a person of
utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable
character and integrity. A person having
criminal antecedents will not fit in this
category. Even if he is acquitted or
discharged in the criminal case that
acquittal or discharge order will have to be
examined to see whether he he has been
completely exonerated in the case because
even a possibility of his taking to the life of
crimes poses a threat to the discipline of
the police force. The standing order,
therefore has entrusted the task of taking
decisions in these matters to the Screening
Committee. The decision of the Screening
Committee must be taken as final unless it
is malafide. In recent times, the image of
the police force is tarnished. Instances of
police personnel behaving in a wayward
manner by misusing power are a matter of
concern. The reputation of the police force
has taken a beating. In such a situation, we
would not like to dilute the importance and
efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening
Committee created by the Delhi Police to
ensure that persons who were likely to
erode its credibility do not enter the police
force. At the same time, the Screening
Committee must be alive to the importance
of trust reposed in it and must treat all
candidates with even hand.

36.
The
Screening
Committee''s
proceedings have been assailed as being
arbitrary, and guided and unfettered. But,
in the present case we see no evidence of
this. However, certain instances have been
pointed out where allegedly persons
involved in serious offences have been
recommended for appointment by the
Screening Committee. It is well settled that
to such cases the doctrine of equality
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution
of India is not attracted. This doctrine does
not envisage negative equality (Fuljit Kaur)
It is not meant to perpetuate illegality or
fraud because it embodies a positive
concept. If the Screening Committee which
is constituted to carry out the object of the
comprehensive policy to ensure that people
with doubtful background do not enter the
police force, deviates from the policy,
makes exception and allows entry of
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undesirable persons, it is undoubtedly
guilty of committing an act of grave
disservice to the police force but we cannot
allow that illegality to be perpetuated by
allowing the respondents to rely on such
cases. It is for the Commissioner of Police ,
Delhi to examine whether the Screening
Committee has compromised the interest of
the police force in any case and to take
remedial action if he finds that it has done
so. Public interest demands an in-depth
examination of this allegation at the
highest level. Perhaps, such deviations
from the policy are responsible for the spurt
in
police
excesses.
We
expect
the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi to look into
the matter and if there is substance in the
allegations
to
take
necessary
steps
forthwith, so that the policy in the Standing
Order is strictly implemented.

37. Our attention is drawn to certain
orders of this Court where, according to the
respondents, Special Leave Petitions filed
by the State arising out of similar fact
situations have been dismissed. It is not
necessary for us to state that in limine
dismissal of Special Leave Petition does
not mean that this Court has affirmed the
judgement or the action impugned therein.
The order rejecting the Special Leave
Petition at the threshold without detailed
reasons does not constitute any declaration
of law or a binding precedent. This
submission is, therefore, rejected."

23. The Division Bench of this Court
in Krishna Pratap Yadav (supra) noted that
the judgement in Ram Kumar Vs. State of
UP 2011 (4) SCC 644, and Commissioner
of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar
2011 (2) UPLBEC 1497; had been referred
to the Larger Bench by the Supreme Court
itself in the case of Jainendra Singh Vs.
State of UP and Others 2012 (8) SCC 748;
and the judgement in the case of Meher
Singh was of a later point in time. It
dismissed the appeals following the law
settled in Mehar Singh.

24. In the case of Kaptan Yadav, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court placed
reliance upon observations made by the
Supreme Court in the case of Jainendra
Singh Vs. State of UP and Others 2012 (8)
SCC 748; where in paragraph 29 the
Supreme Court had after considering
judgements rendered by it earlier culled out
cardinal principles. In paragraph 29.4
onwards the Supreme Court had observed
as under -

"29.4 A candidate having suppressed
material information and/or giving false
information cannot claim right to continue
in service and the employer, having regard
to the nature of employment as well as
other aspects, has the discretion to
terminate his services.

29.5 The purpose of calling for
information regarding involvement in any
criminal case or detention or conviction is
for the purpose of verification of the
character/antecedents
at
the
time
of
required recruitment and suppression of
such material information will have a clear
bearing on the character and antecedents
of the candidate in relation to his continuity
in service.

29.6 The person who suppressed the
material information and/or gives false
information cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuity in service.

29.7 The standard expected of a
person intended to serve in uniform service
is quite distinct from other services and,
therefore, any deliberate statement or
omission regarding a vital information can
be seriously viewed and the ultimate
decision of the appointing authority cannot
be faulted.
10 All. Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
439

29.8 Employee on probation can be
discharged from service or maybe refused
employment on the ground of suppression
of material information or making false
statement relating to his involvement in the
criminal case, in as much as such a
situation would make a person undesirable
or unsuitable for the post.

29.9 An employee in the uniformed
service presupposes a higher level of
integrity, such a person is expected to
uphold the law and on the contrary such a
service born in deceit and subterfuge
cannot be tolerated.

29.10 The authorities entrusted with
the responsibility of appointing constables,
are under a duty to verify the antecedents
of a candidate to find out whether he is
suitable for the post of a constable and so
long as the candidate has not been
acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be
held to be suitable for appointment to the
post of constable."

25. Now I shall consider the case of
petitioner no. 1 as he was a juvenile at the
time criminal proceedings took place
against him. I have also carefully gone
through the order of acquittal of Raj Kumar
the petitioner no. 1 passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on
24.09.2001 in Criminal Case No. 1958 of
2007, ''State versus Rajkumar and others'.
From a perusal of the facts as mentioned by
the Trial court it is evident that the incident
in question leading to the lodging of the
FIR was of 31.10.2003, when the petitioner
no. 1 Rajkumar was only nine years old.
The Court had found that the victim herself
had made a statement that she had fallen
down in the commotion caused due to a lot
many people crowding around her. She had
denied having been beaten up by the
accused Rajkumar or any of the other
accused. The court had therefore acquitted
the accused of the charges levelled against
them.

26. In Shivam Maurya Vs. State of UP
and Others 2020 (5) ADJ; a Division
Bench of this Court had held the
cancellation of candidature of the appellant
petitioner vitiated. The Appellant had
suppressed the information regarding his
involvement in criminal case in his
attestation form. The Court held that the
appointing authority had failed to take into
account Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act
2000;
which
refers
to
removal
of
disqualification attached to conviction and
which started with non obstante clause
giving it an overriding effect. Discussing
the definition of "juvenile in conflict with
law" which meant a juvenile who is alleged
to have committed an offence and has not
completed 18 years of age on the date of
commission of such offence, it observed
that Section 19 of the Act of 2000 had been
included in order to give a juvenile an
opportunity to lead his life with no stigma
and to wipe out the circumstances of his
past. Under Rule 99 of Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children ) Rules
2007, the records or documents in respect
of a juvenile or child in conflict with the
law shall be kept in a safe place for a
period of seven years and thereafter were to
be destroyed by the Officer in Charge or
the Board or the Committee, as the case
may be. Section 21 of the Act of 2000
prohibits publication of the name of the
juvenile in conflict with law with the object
to protect him from adverse consequences
on account of his conviction for an offence
he committed as a juvenile. Disclosure of
name of juvenile in conflict with law is
punishable with fine. The Court observed
that the Act being a beneficial legislation,
concealment of pendency of criminal case
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against the appellant petitioner was of no
consequence. As per the requirement of law
a conviction in an offence will not be be
treated as a disqualification for a juvenile.
The records of the case pertaining to his
involvement in a criminal matter have to be
obliterated after a specified period of time.
The intention of the legislature is clear that
in so far as juveniles are concerned their
criminal records are not to stand in the way
in their lives. The Court set aside the
cancellation of candidature of the petitioner
appellant as it was contrary to the object
sought to be achieved by the Juvenile
Justice Act.

27. In a judgment rendered by a
Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.
38380 of 2017, ''Upendra Chauhan Vs.
Union of India and 5 Others, decided on
20.02.2019,
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner had been cancelled on the ground
that he had deliberately suppressed the fact
of his involvement in two criminal cases.
Initially the petitioner's Writ Petition was
disposed off requiring the respondents to
reconsider the case of the petitioner bearing
in mind the principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh
Versus Union of India and others 2016 (8)
SCC 471; the respondents thereafter by the
impugned
order
had
rejected
the
candidature of the petitioner again. They
admitted that he had declared about
criminal cases in his attestation form but
observed that because of such criminal
cases his character was not unblemished at
the time of filling up of the attestation
form. The Coordinate Bench had found that
the petitioner was tried as a juvenile in
those cases under the provisions of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act 2015, and ultimately the said cases
came to a close after the filling up of the
form, with the petitioner being released
back in the custody of his father, with an
advice and warning. The Court considered
Section 24 of the 2015 Act where it has
been
provided
that
notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, a child who has
committed an offence and has been dealt
with under the provisions of the Act, shall
not suffer disqualification, if any, attached
to a conviction of an offence under such
law with the Proviso making the Subsection (1) inapplicable in the case of a
child who is above the age of 16 years, and
is found to be in conflict with the law by
the Children's Court under clause (i)of Subsection (1) of Section 19, which deals with
heinous crimes.