AMIT Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance is that his candidature to the Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) was wrongly rejected on the basis that he did not report details of an FIR that pertained to a time when he was still a minor. He complains that the termination of his employment during period of training is unsustainable and arbitrary.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner was selected by the Railway Protection Special Force for the post of Constable and received a call for joining training on 05.10.2014. He reported for duties. He accordingly joined the RPSF and was sent for training. On 19.06.2015, he was discharged/terminated from employment upon allegations that according to the police verification report, he was accused of offences punishable under Section 148/149/323/506 IPC. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 24.03.2009 which eventually culminated in his exoneration on 24.02.2011. It was further alleged that this information was withheld from the authority.

(3.) The petitioner's representation was unsuccessful and his appeal was rejected on 19.06.2015. It is contended by the petitioner that at that time when he alleged offence occurred on 24.03.2009, he was a juvenile and was not even 17 years of age. In this connection, it is emphasized that the petitioner's date of birth as 12.05.1992 was not disputed. In these circumstances, the contention that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence is undeniable. Elaborating on this, learned counsel urged that proceedings by regular Criminal Court pursuant to prosecution by the police were a nullity. Learned counsel relies upon Section 19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 in this regard. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urges that the Criminal Court's judgment acquitting the petitioner has not been placed on record and that in any event he withheld the necessary information which entitled the employer from disqualifying him from his candidature.