COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. VIJAY KUMAR MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed in OA 2481/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The respondent (Vijay Kumar Malik) had applied for the post of Sub -Inspector (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police. However, his candidature in respect of the said post was cancelled on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case pertaining to FIR No. 277 dated 20.08.2005 under Sections 302/148/149/120 -B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station City Sonepat, Haryana.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that the said Vijay Kumar Malik had disclosed his involvement in the said case in both the application form as also in the attestation form. In point of fact, the said Vijay Kumar Malik had already been acquitted on 17.10.2006 by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, there are two aspects to this case. One, that the respondent Vijay Kumar Malik had already been acquitted of all charges even before he applied for the said post of Sub -Inspector (Executive) Male with the Delhi Police. The other being that he was, in any event, a juvenile.

(3.) A plain reading of the above extracted portion of the order dated 16.06.2011 clearly discloses that the observations are contrary to law. The fact that the said Vijay Kumar Malik has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board meant that there is no evidence of his having been involved in the so -called heinous case of murder and conspiracy. Just because he was named in the FIR does not mean that he was guilty of committing the offence mentioned in the FIR. Once there is an acquittal from a court of law after a full -fledged trial, the police authorities cannot, ignoring such acquittal, consider the accused to be a convict and it cannot be assumed that the said accused was, in fact, involved in the offences mentioned in the said FIR. Furthermore, since the respondent was a juvenile, it was all the more necessary for the petitioner to have ignored the fact of the alleged involvement of the respondent in the said criminal case. This is so because of the very provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Similar situations were examined by us in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v. Sumit Kumar [WP(C) 2671/2012] decided on 07.05.2012 as also in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors v. Pradeep Hooda [W.P.(C) 2268/2012] decided on 08.05.2012. In the latter decision, we had noted that even where a juvenile is found to have committed an offence, he shall not suffer any disqualification and even the records are to be obliterated after a specified period of time. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the provisions of Section 19 of the said Act.