Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Delhi set aside the petitioner’s termination from the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) service. The Court ordered that the petitioner be reinstated within twelve weeks, with all consequential benefits, excluding back wages. The primary reason for the Court’s decision was that the petitioner had been a juvenile at the time of the alleged criminal offence and therefore was not legally obligated to disclose the details of the pending criminal case in the attestation form.
Facts:
The petitioner had successfully cleared the competitive exam conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the position of Constable (General Duty) in the SSB and was appointed in 2013. Upon joining the service, he filled out an Attestation Form (Verification Roll), in which he was required to answer questions about his criminal record. He denied being arrested, prosecuted, or detained for any crime.
However, after completing his formalities, the SSB initiated a background verification process through local authorities. During this process, it was revealed that the petitioner had a criminal case pending against him (FIR No. 449A/2006) for several charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sections related to assault and intimidation. This FIR was related to a family dispute, and the petitioner was allegedly arrested and sent to jail in 2006. The respondents accused the petitioner of deliberately concealing this information in the attestation form, and as a result, the SSB terminated his employment in December 2014.
The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the case at the time of his appointment, that he was a juvenile (under 16 years of age) when the offence occurred, and that he had not been properly arrested or imprisoned. He claimed that he did not intentionally conceal the information.
Issues:
The primary issues in the case were:
- Whether the petitioner was required to disclose the criminal case against him, given that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence.
- Whether the termination based on the non-disclosure of this information in the attestation form was justifiable under the law.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended that:
- He was a juvenile at the time the criminal case was filed (October 2006), and as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, juveniles are not supposed to face disqualification for crimes committed while underage.
- At the time of filling out the attestation form, he was unaware of the criminal case against him, as it was part of a family dispute, and he was not formally arrested or detained.
- The report from the police station regarding his arrest was inaccurate. Through a Right to Information (RTI) request, he obtained evidence showing he was not jailed in connection with the case.
- He had honestly filled out the form based on the information available to him at the time, believing he had no criminal record to disclose.
- Additionally, the disciplinary authority had failed to provide him with a copy of the letter from the Superintendent of Police before passing the termination order, violating his right to a fair process.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents argued that:
- The petitioner had intentionally withheld information about the pending criminal case. The attestation form required full disclosure, and the petitioner’s failure to do so was grounds for termination.
- Even though the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the offence, this did not absolve him of his duty to disclose the case. The respondents pointed to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) guidelines, which stipulate that individuals involved in serious criminal offences should not be considered for recruitment.
- The disciplinary authority had provided the petitioner with an opportunity to explain the situation, and after considering the facts, the termination was in accordance with the SSB Rules and the MHA guidelines.
- The petitioner’s concealment of a criminal case, even if juvenile, could still impact the discipline and credibility of the force, especially when applying for a position in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).
Analysis of the Law:
The Court examined the relevant legal provisions, particularly focusing on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Act protects juveniles from suffering disqualification due to a conviction for an offence committed when they were underage. The Court noted that the juvenile status of the petitioner should have been a key consideration when evaluating his application for the position, particularly in light of the legislative intent to protect juveniles from stigma.
The Court emphasized that the verification of antecedents and criminal records is a critical part of the recruitment process. However, it also noted that such verification should be done in a manner that respects the rights of juveniles and avoids unfair consequences for individuals who were underage at the time of the alleged crime.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to several important precedents that dealt with similar issues:
- Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar: This case dealt with a candidate who concealed his involvement in a criminal case. The Supreme Court held that minor indiscretions by young people should be condoned, as they may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.
- Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.: This case involved a juvenile who failed to disclose a criminal case. The Court held that the petitioner was not required to disclose the case under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and should be treated with the protections afforded to juveniles.
- Md Parvej Alam vs. Union of India: This case reinforced the principle that juveniles should not face discrimination or disqualification due to crimes committed when they were underage.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court recognized that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and thus was not required to disclose the criminal case in his attestation form, as per the Juvenile Justice Act. The Act is designed to ensure that juveniles are not stigmatized for offences committed during their childhood and that their records are eventually cleared after a certain period.
The Court also found that the respondents had violated the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act by disclosing the petitioner’s juvenile criminal case during the verification process. It emphasized that the police should have refrained from revealing such information during the verification process.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s termination was unjustified, as he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and should not have been penalized for concealing the information. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all consequential benefits, except for back wages.
Implications:
This case underscores the importance of protecting the rights of juveniles, especially in employment and recruitment matters. It also highlights the need for authorities to consider the juvenile status of an individual before making decisions that could affect their career or future opportunities. The decision reinforces the intent of the Juvenile Justice Act to prevent the stigmatization of young people and ensure their reintegration into society without the burden of past mistakes made during their youth. Furthermore, it sends a message to employers, especially in law enforcement and government sectors, to respect the legal protections afforded to juveniles and to be cautious when dealing with information regarding juvenile criminal cases.
