Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikash vs Comm. Of Police on 8 November, 2023
1
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.158/2019 & MA No.1385/2020
With
OA No. 4333/2018 & MA No. 1539/2020
OA No. 3270/2019
OA No. 4118/2016
OA No. 271/2019 & MA No. 207/2019
and
OA No. 4363/2018
Reserved on: 17.10.2023
Pronounced on: 08.11.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
O.A. No.158/2019
Vikash, Age 21 years
Group-C, Appointment: Constable (Exe.)
Roll No.2201014035,
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash,
R/o VPO-Bawwa, Tehsil Kosli,
District Rewari,
Haryana-123303.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
M.S.O. Building,
New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment,
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi - 9.
....Respondents
2
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018
OA No. 4333/2018
Hanuman Singh Sekhawat, Age 38 years
Group-C, Appointment: Constable (Exe)
Roll No.2402029221,
S/o Sh. Abhay Singh Sekhawat,
R/o B-110, Budh Vihar,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD, Naya Sachivalaya,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building,
New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment,
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi - 9.
....Respondents
OA No. 3270/2019
Manish Kumar (DOB 01.07.1995) Age 24 years
Group-C, Appointment: Constable (Exe)
S/o Late Sh. Satyaveer Singh Dhaterwal,
Vill-Dhatterwala, PO Budania,
Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan - 333 025.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building,
New Delhi.
3
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment,
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 9.
....Respondents
OA No. 4118/2016
Vijay s/o Sh. Narender Singh,
Age around 24 years,
R/o Village & Post Office Kandera,
District Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh-250620.
...Applicant
Versus
1. GNCTD of Delhi through
Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, IP Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment Cell,
New Police Line, Delhi - 110 009.
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Establishment)
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, IP Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
....Respondents
OA No. 271/2019
Kuldeep, Age about 22 years
s/o Sh. Surender,
R/o RZ-13, Street No.8,
Sadh Nagar, Palam,
New Delhi - 110 045.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, MSO Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Recruitment Cell), New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
....Respondents
4
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018
OA No. 4363/2018
Parvesh, Age 23 years
Group-C, Appointment: Constable (Exe.)
Roll No.2201191758,
S/o Sh. Yudhveer,
R/o Village Bariawas, Post Majra Gurdas,
District Rewari, Haryana-123401.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD, Naya Sachivalaya,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
M.S.O. Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment, New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 9.
....Respondents
Appearance for applicants:
Sh. Sachin Chauhan in OA Nos. 158/2019,
4333/2018, 3270/2019 and 4363/2018.
Sh. Sourabh Ahuja in OA No.4118/2016.
Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Mr. Jatin Parashar and Mr.
Yagyesh Kumar in OA No.271/20-19.
Appearance for respondents:
Mr. Amit Yadav with Ms. Monika Bhargava and Mr.
Amit Anand in OA Nos. 158/2019, 4333/2018,
3270/2019 and 271/2019.
Mr. Puneet Rathi for Ms. Rashmi Chopra in OA
No.4118/2016.
Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma in OA No.4363/2018.
5
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the six Original Applications before us, i.e., OA Nos. 158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018, we propose to dispose them through this common order.
2. With the consent of the parties, OA No.158/2019 has been taken as the lead case wherein the applicant is aggrieved of Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 03.07.2018 and order dated 21.12.2018 whereby his candidature to the post of Constable (Exe.) has been cancelled. The relief prayed for in the aforesaid OA is as under:-
"To quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 03.07.2018 and order dated 21.12.2018 whereby the candidature of the applicant to the post of the Constable (Exe.) is cancelled and to further direct the respondents that applicant be given appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances."
3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the applicant in the OA are, that he applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police during the recruitment process held in the year 2016. Having been declared successful in the written, physical, interview and 6 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 medical tests, he was provisionally selected against Roll No.2201014035 under OBC category.
3.1 He was falsely implicated in a criminal case FIR No.87/2014 u/s 354-A/354-D/451/506/34 IPC and POSCO Act at PS/Kosli. He was acquitted from all the allegations levelled in the aforesaid criminal case by the Juvenile Board vide judgment dated 29.09.2014. He himself revealed the said factum in the attestation form filled by him on 28.02.2018.
3.2 On 03.07.2018, the applicant was served with a Show Cause Notice as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police-2016 may not be cancelled on the following count:
"On receipt of your character and antecedents report from SP/Rewari (Haryana), it is revealed that you were involved in a criminal case FIR No.87/2014 u/s 354-A/354-D/451/506/34 IPC & POSCO Act, PS/Kosli and the Hon'ble Court acquitted you vide its order/judgment dated 29.09.2014.
On scrutiny of Attestation Form filled up by you on 28.02.20218, it is revealed that you have disclosed the facts of your involvement in the relevant column of attention form.
In view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4842/2013 - CP/Delhi vs. Mehar Singh and Civil Appeal No.4965/2013 - CP/Delhi vs. Shani Kumar, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that 'the police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the 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 in integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in his 7 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 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 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."
3.3 The applicant submitted a reply to the SCN stating that he had been falsely implicated in criminal case FIR No.87/2014 and was acquitted by the Juvenile Board vide judgment dated 29.09.2014. As the applicant was a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime, the instant SCN and cancellation of his candidature are vitiated as these are contrary to the object and the provisions of Juvenile (Care & Protection) Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as The Juvenile Act 2000] even after the said Act has been amended. Relevant Section 19 of the Act ibid reads as under:-
"19. Removal or disqualification attaching to conviction (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.
(2) The Board shall 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."8
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 3.4 When the juvenile has been extended a protective umbrella under The Juvenile Act, 2000, the respondents are estopped from cancellation of his candidature for appointment as Constable (exe.) under the garb of registration of criminal case against him wherein he has been acquitted of all the charges. This view, as per the applicant, has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in GNCTD vs. Sumit Kumar [WP(C) No.2671/2012 decided on 07.05.2018] wherein it has been held -
"7. It is apparent that by virtue of the said provisions of Section 19(1) of the said Act, 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. In the present case, the respondent was not held to have committed an offence. He had, in fact, been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board on 10.08.2007. When a juvenile does not suffer any disqualification even after it is found that he had committed an offence, there is no question at all of a juvenile suffering and disqualification or disadvantage in the case of an acquittal by Juvenile Justice Board. Consequently, we find that the decision rendered by the Tribunal cannot be faulted."
3.5 Observation of the Screening Committee in the present case is arbitrary and uncalled for as the same is based only on involvement in a criminal case and the said Committee did not even consider an iota of allegations mentioned in the FIR. Hence, the observation of the Screening Committee by virtue of 9 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 which candidature of the applicant has been cancelled, is violative of Sec. 19 (1) of The Juvenile Act, 2000. 3.6 Decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned in the SCN issued to the applicant are not applicable in the instant case as in both the aforementioned cases, the petitioners were not juvenile at the time of registration of criminal case whereas the applicant herein was a juvenile at the relevant point of time. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.6062/2017 decided on 14.12.2017], relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"10...We may add here that even when police verification in respect of the petitioner was being conducted on the directions of the respondents, the concerned police officials ought to have refrained from revealing the information pertaining to the petitioner in the case in question, since he was a juvenile at that point of time. This was in fact a gross breach of confidentiality contemplated under the Act.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 11th May, 2017, is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from today along with all the consequential benefits, excluding back wages."
3.7 In support of his case, the applicant has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Pradeep Hooda vs. Delhi Commissioner of Police [OA No.2458/2011 decided on 10.01.2012] upheld upto the 10 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil CC No.20177/12 decided on 19.11.2012. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble High Court in GNCTD vs. Robin Singh [WP(C) No.2068/2010 decided on 25.08.2010]. The applicant was a juvenile at the time of registration of FIR. He was involved in a criminal case but was acquitted of the charges. He cannot be denied the appointment as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Police vs. Ombeer Yadav [WP(C) No.12899 of 2009 decided on 19.04.2010].
3.8 Before cancellation of candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Exe.) on the ground of unsuitability, the respondents ought to have considered the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. [SLP No.20525/2011 decided on 21.07.2016]. As per the applicant, the following points should have been considered by the respondents before cancellation of his candidature for the post in question:
i) The age of the applicant at the time of registration of FIR No.87/2014 was 17 years and he was acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board on 29.09.2014. Hence, he ought to have been given the benefit of Section 19(1) of The Juvenile Act, 11 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 2000 while adjudging his suitability for the post in question;
ii) The background of the applicant is rural. The applicant being a student and aspiring for a government job has been made a target to spoil his career as the family of the complainant was in an acrimonious relationship with the applicant's family due to inter se dispute on agriculture field; and
iii) The applicant is from a rural background and that the post for which he has been provisionally selected is of the lowest rank in the hierarchy of police department, hence, needs a sympathetic consideration.
3.9 The respondents have cancelled the applicant's candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) without giving any benefit of The Juvenile Act, 2000 and even without considering the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra). The said act of the respondents is violative of The Juvenile Act, 2000 and is against various judicial pronouncements, some of which have been referred to 12 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 above. Aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicant filed the instant OA.
4. Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant stating that he applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police-2016 under the OBC category. He was provisionally selected for the said post subject to satisfactory verification of his character and antecedents, medical examination final scrutiny of documents etc. 4.1 Scrutiny of the attestation form filled up by the applicant revealed that he had disclosed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.87/2014 u/s 354-A/354-D/451/506/34 IPC and POSCO Act at PS/Kosli, in the relevant column of the attestation form. Later, he was acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 29.09.2014.
4.2 As per the extant rules and instructions, the applicant was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 03.07.2018 proposing cancellation of his candidature for appointment to the post in question for the reasons mentioned therein. The applicant submitted his reply to the said SCN. Accordingly, his case was placed before 13 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 the Screening Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to assess his suitability in Delhi Police due to involvement in a criminal case. 4.3 As per Standing Order No.398/2018, the Screening Committee, after examining the applicant's case in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) and various other decisions, observed as under:-
"The case was registered for his conduct/act with a minor school going girl. The applicant trespassed the house of the victim and outraged the modesty of girl. The applicant was involved in a heinous criminal case. The conduct of the applicant shows bullying type and propensity to indulge in crime without fear of law. The applicant cannot be treated as a child, as he was able to understand the repercussion of his criminal act. In a discipline force like Delhi Police, the applicant is expected to protect the life and property of public, particularly downtrodden and girls and not to harass them but his previous conduct shows that he cannot be entrusted with such a sensitive job, though he has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board by giving benefit of doubt. The reply to the show cause notice submitted by the applicant was not found convincing."
4.4 In view of the above observations, the case of the applicant for appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police was not recommended by the Screening Committee. Accordingly, his candidature was rightly rejected by the respondents vide order dated 21.12.2018.
14
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018
5. The applicant filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the contentions of the respondents and reiterating the averments made in the OA and stating as under:-
i) The averments made in the counter affidavit are vague and evasive as none of the submissions specifically made in the OA has been responded to, thus, it cannot be deemed to stand accepted. Even the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 is non-
speaking and mechanical order and does not deal with any of the pleas raised by the applicant in the OA and in the reply to the SCN. Hence, the said impugned order is bad in law.
ii) The observation of the Screening Committee is also arbitrary and totally uncalled for as the same is violative of Section 19(1) of The Juvenile Act, 2000 for the reason that the Screening Committee did not consider even an iota of allegations mentioned in the FIR to judge the applicant's suitability in terms of the present employment. On the contrary, the Screening Committee had considered 15 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 only the complaint on the basis of which he was involved in a false case and rejected his candidature without any reason and rhyme.
iii) Even the decisions relied upon by the respondents did not pertain to juvenile whereas the applicant was admittedly juvenile at the time of registration of FIR.
Once a juvenile has been extended a protective umbrella under The Juvenile Act, 2000, the respondents are estopped from cancellation of applicant's candidature for appointment as Constable (exe.) under the garb of registration of criminal case against him wherein he had been acquitted of all the charges. This view, as per the applicant, has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in GNCTD vs. Sumit Kumar's (supra).
6. Heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Mr. Sourabh Ahuja and Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Anand, Sh. Amit Yadav and Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also 16 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 gone through the citations relied upon by both the parties.
7. The issue arising for adjudication in these cases is whether a person, who happened to be a juvenile at the time of registration of FIR and had been acquitted from the criminal case, can be held to be disqualified/unsuitable for government employment.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the thrust of the legislation, i.e., The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as of 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed such person as a juvenile. He drew our attention to clause (xiv) of Section 3 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which provides that 'principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances'.
8.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant was admittedly a juvenile at the time of registration of FIR in question and had been acquitted of the charges levelled against him by Juvenile Justice 17 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 Board vide order dated 29.09.2014. Even the applicant himself disclosed the aforesaid information in the attestation form filled up by him on 28.02.2016. Hence, the instant case is not of concealment but judging the suitability by the Screening Committee ignoring the protection given by The Juvenile Act, 2000. 8.2 Learned counsel for the applicant added that the respondents, while rejecting the candidature of the applicant, did not consider the vital fact that at the time of registration of FIR against him, he was a juvenile. Hence, rejection of the applicant's candidature for appointment as Constable (Exe.) is violative of the concept of The Juvenile Act, 2000 and needs to be quashed out-rightly. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a catena of decisions of various courts, which are as under:-
i) Umesh Chandra Yadav vs. The Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner [Civil Appeal Nos. 1964 of 2022 decided on 02.03.2022];
ii) Union of India vs. Ramesh Bishnoi [Civil Appeal No. 9109/2019 decided 29.01.2019];
iii) Barun Chandra Thakur vs. master Bholu [Civil Appeal No. 950/2022 decided 13.07.2022];
iv) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India [SLP No.20525/2011 decided on 21.07.2016]; 18
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018
v) Anuj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Write A No.9594/2020 decided on 30.04.2021 by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad];
vi) State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Bhawani Shankar Moorth [DB Spl. Appl. Writ No.816/2022 decided on 25.01.2023 by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur];
vii) Mahendra Solanki vs. Commissioner of Police [WP(C) No.2219/2023 decided on 10.03.2023 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi];
viii) Pawan Singh vs. Commissioner of Police [WP(C) No.11517/2021 decided on 01.12.2021 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi];
ix) Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India [WP(C) No.6062/2017 decided on 14.12.2017 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi];
x) GNCTD vs. Sumit Kumar [WP(C) No.2671/2012 decided on 07.05.2012 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi];
xi) GNCTD vs. Pradeep Hooda [WP(C)
No.2268/2012 decided 08.05.2012 by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi] and
xii) Sumit Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police [OA No. 4023/2010 decided on 16.01.2012 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi].
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following decisions to defend his case:-
i) Centre for PIL & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. [WP(C) No.348/2010 decided on 03.03.2011 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court];
ii) The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bhupendra Yadav SLP(C) No.27301 of 2018 decided on 20.09.2023 by Hon'ble Apex Court];
iii) Union Territory, Chandigarh Administra-
tion & Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr.
19
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 [Civil Appeal No.67/2018 decided on 08.01.2018 by Hon'ble Apex Court];
iv) Deepak Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [WP (C) No.2265/2012 decided on 15.07.2013 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi];
v) Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Amit Panwar [WP(C) No.248/2012 decided on 09.05.2013 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi];
vi) Gugan vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
[WP(C) No. 3182/2015 decided on 27.05.2015 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi];
vii) Anil Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
[WP(C) No.2074/2018 decided on 02.11.2022 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi];
viii) Mallela Suryanarayana & Ors. vs. Vijaya Commercial Bank [decided by Hon'ble Andhra High Court on 28.05.1958];
ix) Bhaskar Tejasvi vs. Union of India & Ors.
[OA No.230/2017 decided on 23.03.2018 by CAT Principal Bench] and
x) Commissioner of Police & Anr. vs. Vijay Kumar Malik [SLP(CC No.21277/2012 decided on 07.12.2012 by Hon'ble Apex Court].
10. On hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we have given our in-depth consideration to the facts on record as well as the arguments put forth by learned counsel for both the parties. The stand taken by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant cannot be denied appointment to the post of Constable in Delhi Police solely on the ground of his being unsuitable, in view of the following reasons:-
i) That the applicant was under no obligation to disclose his involvement in any criminal 20 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 case pertaining to a period when he was a juvenile;
ii) In terms of Section 19 of The Juvenile Act, 2000 and 2015, the applicant cannot be denied the benefit of government employment because of any FIR emanating from any criminal act committed while he was a juvenile;
iii) Learned counsel for the applicant has given a series of citations in his favour as mentioned in para 8.2 of this order. The sum and substance of all these citations is that in view of the protection granted under The Juvenile Act, 2000 and 2015, nothing can be held against the applicant while considering his candidature for a government job, for his involvement in any criminal act committed by him while he was a juvenile;
iv) The applicant is from a rural background and that the post for which he has been provisionally selected is of the lowest rank in the hierarchy of police department, hence, needs a sympathetic consideration; and
v) The respondents were in fact required to obliterate all such past records against the 21 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 applicant and the very fact that the respondents have made use of the same is itself in violation of The Juvenile Act, 2000 and 2015, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bishnoi's case (supra).
11. Per contra, the stand of the respondents had been-
i) Nature of the duties assigned to a Constable require him/her to perform the onerous duty of maintaining law and order in the society and a person with a criminal record is obviously unsuitable for holding such a post;
ii) Induction of such candidates into a disciplined force like Delhi Police would put in jeopardy not only the discipline of the force but would also be hazardous to the maintenance of law and order and well-being of the society at large;
iii) As far as suitability of the applicant is concerned, the same has been adjudged by a duly constituted Screening Committee in terms of Standing Order No.398 which is peculiar to Delhi Police in view of the 22 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 sensitive nature of the job performed by police personnel. Whereas such candidates may be suitable in other departments/posts in the government, their induction into a disciplined and law enforcing force like Delhi Police, is certainly not warranted;
iv) The respondents have also tried to draw a fine distinction between 'Disqualification' and 'Unsuitability'. They have quoted the dictionary meaning of these two terms also. Their stand is that had the respondents disqualified the applicant for the post of Constable, they would not have even permitted the applicant to sit in the examination. Thus, the respondents have never disqualified the applicant solely on the basis of his past criminal record, however, the Standing Order No.398 ibid, authorises them to thoroughly examine the criminal details of a prospective appointee like the applicant and then arrive at a conclusion regarding his suitability or otherwise for the post of Constable. In terms of the said Standing Order, the Screening Committee 23 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 had applied its mind and recorded the reasons for applicant's unsuitability. Moreover, the said Standing Order of Delhi Police has never been questioned or struck down by any court of law even till date. Hence, the respondents were well within their right to reject the applicant's claim on the basis of unsuitability as opposed to disqualification, as mentioned in The Juvenile Act, 2000 and 2015.
12. We find that Hon'ble Apex Court in Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra), while allowing the petition in favour of the petitioner observed as under:-
"17. In the instant case, the appellant was a juvenile when a criminal case was registered against him on 25th October, 1997 and was also a juvenile when the order of discharge was passed by the learned trial Judge on 15th December, 2001. This was undisputedly a special circumstance indeed which was not taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order of cancellation of his appointment by order dated 19th February, 2015."
13. In Ramesh Bishnoi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"9...Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation, i.e., The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and 24 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma..."
14 In Anuj Kumar's case (supra), from the preceding legal narrative, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"42. From the preceding legal narrative, the following position of law emerges:
I. Juveniles and adults form separate classes. Criminal prosecution of an adult is a lawful basis for determination of suitability of a candidate for appointment to public office. However, prosecution of juveniles is in a separate class. Using criminal prosecution faced by a candidate as a juvenile to form an opinion about his suitability for appointment, is arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
II. The requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also denudes the child of the protection assured by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time). Hence the employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile..."
15. Hon'ble High of Delhi in Pawan Singh's case (supra), dealing with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in a similar matter, held as under:-
"5.1. As noticed hereinabove, the first FIR was registered against the petitioner when he was a juvenile; being a child below the age of eighteen years. This was an offence, which the petitioner allegedly committed, in or about 1995, when he was about sixteen years of age.25
OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 5.2. Undoubtedly, on the date, when the offence was said to have been committed by the petitioner, he was a "juvenile", as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [in short "the 2015 JJ Act"]. Section 3(xiv) of the 2015 JJ Act mandates [as one of the guiding principles] that a fresh start should be afforded to a child, who passes through the juvenile justice system by erasing all past records, save and except, where special circumstances demand otherwise.
5.3. This aspect was emphasized by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Union of India and others versus Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the appointment of the concerned persons, i.e., one Ramesh Bishnoi was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him under the provisions of Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the IPC. In this case as well, at the time when the alleged offence was committed, Ramesh Bishnoi was well below eighteen years of age.
5.3(a). In the trial that ensued, Ramesh Bishnoi was acquitted. The Supreme Court, while noting that the offence could not be proved as neither the girl against whom the alleged offence had been committed nor her parents stepped into the witness box, which resulted in acquittal of Ramesh Bishnoi, made the following observations, having regard to the principle of fresh start engrafted in Section 3(xiv) of the 2015 JJ Act:
"8. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were framed against the respondent, on 30-6-2009, the respondent was well under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 5-9-1991. Firstly, it was not disputed that the charges were never proved against the respondent as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent, resulting in his acquittal on 24-11-2011. Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too, the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) 26 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the said Act. In clause (xiv) of Section 3, it is clearly provided as follows:
"3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the juvenile justice system should be erased except in special circumstances."
9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was a minor when the charges had been framed against him of the offences under Sections 354, 447 and 509 IPC. It is also not disputed that he was acquitted of the charges. However, even if he had been convicted, the same could not have been held against him for getting a job, as admittedly, he was a minor when the alleged offences were committed and the charges had been framed against him.
Section 3(xiv) provides for the same and the exception of special circumstances does not apply to the facts of the present case.
10. Further, the case against the respondent is not with regard to the suppression of any conviction or charges having been framed against him. The respondent had very fairly disclosed about the charges which had been framed and his acquittal on the basis of no evidence having been adduced by the complainant against the respondent. In our considered view, the same can also not be said to be a suppression by the respondent, on the basis of which he could be deprived of a job, for which he was duly selected after following the due process and appointment having been offered to him." [emphasis is ours]
16. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the crimes committed by juveniles and after acquittal or even on conviction, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the said record of 27 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 a juvenile should be obliterated so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by him as a juvenile. Whereas none of the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents pertain to cases of juveniles.
17. However, we do not subscribe the view expressed by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is from a rural background and that the post for which he has been provisionally selected is at the lowest rung of the hierarchy in Delhi Police. The suitability of a person is to be adjudged for the post for which he has been selected and the candidate has to fulfill the requirement of the job irrespective of his hailing from rural or urban background. Moreover, the post of Constable may be at the lowest rung of the hierarchy but it is the first and direct interface of the police with the general public and is of critical importance for the reporting and investigation of criminal matters.
18. Be that as it may, we find that irrespective of the fact whether the applicant had disclosed the FIRs/conviction while he was a juvenile, he is certainly entitled to all the protection and benefits enshrined under The Juvenile Act. His claim gets further 28 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 strengthened by judicial verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed above.
19. In view of the above, the respondents did not have the leverage to cancel the applicant's candidature on his being found unsuitable by the Screening Committee. Although learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the Standing Order of Delhi Police mentioned above has never been questioned or quashed/struck down by any court of law, yet we feel that rejection of the applicant's claim in the garb of his unsuitability adjudged by the Screening Committee on the basis of his past criminal record when he was a juvenile, would be against the spirit of The Juvenile Act, 2000 and 2015.
20. In the entire conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case and citations relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties, more particularly considering the protection given to juveniles under The Juvenile Act, we hold that rejection of the claim of the applicant on the basis of his involvement in criminal action during his life as a juvenile, cannot come in the way of his appointment for the post of Constable for which he has been duly selected by the respondents. Accordingly, we 29 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 dispose of the OA (OA No. 158/2019-lead case), with the following directions:-
i) Show Cause Notice dated 03.07.2018 and order dated 21.12.2018 whereby candidature of the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) has been cancelled are quashed and set aside;
ii) The respondents are hereby directed to appoint the applicant on the post of Constable as per his merit and subject to his being found suitable after medical examination or any other criteria except the one regarding juvenile acts, as discussed above; and
iii) The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the applicant shall be entitled to wages only from the date he assumes charge of the post in question.
21. By the aforesaid order, all the other five OAs, i.e., OA No. 4333/2018, OA No. 3270/2019, OA No.4118/2016, OA No. 271/2019 and OA No.4363/2018 also stand disposed of in the same terms. Pending MAs, if any, 30 OA Nos.158/2019, 4333/2018, 3270/2019, 4118/2016, 271/2019 and 4363/2018 also stand disposed of. Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order in all the aforesaid OAs.
22. No order as to costs.
(Anand Mathur) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/na/