Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the speaking order dated 11.05.2017, whereby he has been discharged and his candidature for appointment as a Constable in the RPF/RPSF has been cancelled.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that in the year 2011, the respondents published an advertisement for the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force. The petitioner applied for the said post and successfully qualified the examinations. Thereafter he was sent for training at RTC, CISF Bhilaie (CG) for being appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force. On 11.06.2014 the petitioner filled an attestation form mentioning therein that no criminal case was registered against him. However, when the attestation form filled by the petitioner was sent to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur for police verification, it was revealed that a case bearing FIR No.752/2010 under Sections 323/325/506/504 IPC was registered against him. On the basis of said police verification report, the respondents passed an order dated 29.07.2015, discharging the petitioner from training with immediate effect for suppression of facts.

(i) While filling the attestation form on 11.06.2014, in column No.12 he did not mention about registration of police case No.752/2010 under Sections 323/325/506/504 IPC, thus violated para 03 of the attestation form which provided :

"If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the attestation form comes to notice would be liable to be terminated."

(v) The petitioner was to serve in uniformed service and any deliberate statement of omission regarding vital information from a member of a disciplined force is liable to be judged on a higher pedestal.

(vi) The matter of suppression regarding the registration and pendency of a criminal case against him was deliberate and not due to any misconception, thus rendering him unfit for appointment in the force.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate has sought quashing of the order impugned mainly on the ground that on the date of registration of FIR No.752/2010 under Sections 323/325/506/504 IPC against the petitioner and his family members, he was a juvenile, thus entitled to protection under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000.

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 backwages." (Emphasis added)

17. Thus, in view of the above facts and the legal position, the factum of prosecution of the petitioner in case FIR No.752/2010 under Sections 323/325/506/504 IPC could not have been taken into consideration by the respondent/RPSF on his omission to mention the same in the attestation form on account of his status as a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of commission of the alleged offence. We cannot ignore or overlook the beneficial provisions and the socially progressive statute of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.