DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Vs. K NAMBUBOOMURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Application is moved by the Director General of Police, Chennai; The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai; The District Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District; and The Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Temple Police Station, Ramanathapuram District, seeking a review of the order passed on 01.09.2016 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.A.(MD)No.SR32506 of 2015, by us.

(2.) When M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.A.(MD)No.SR32506 was taken up for consideration by us, we had not confined our order merely to examine the request for condonation of delay in moving the writ appeal, which was directed against the judgment rendered in W.P.MD.No.7325 of 2013, but we examined the matter on merits. We noticed that the original writ petitioner sought for recruitment as Police Constable, Grade-II, and, at the time of verification of his antecedents, the Home Department realised that the writ petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered as Crime No.6 of 2012 on the file of Ramanathapuram Temple Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294 (b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was based upon an incident, that took place on 20.01.2012. The writ petitioner was, in fact, arrested on 22.01.2012 by the police.

(3.) In paragraph 7 of our order, dated 01.09.2016, we went on to record that the writ petitioner was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, which initially released him on bail on 27.01.2012 and that the proceedings pending on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, were quashed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, on the ground that the accused was a juvenile, at the time of commission of offence. We had also noticed, that under Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000, the relevant records of conviction should be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or after the reasonable period expired. Therefore, the essential purpose intended to be achieved was to see that not even any traces of the juvenile's involvement and/or the criminal record should be left behind. We further noticed, that the writ petitioner was, therefore, obliged not to disclose the commission of offence, when he was a juvenile, while filling up the application form, for seeking employment as a Police Constable, years later on. Under those circumstances, we dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition, seeking condonation of delay, so also the Writ Appeal SR., as we found no merit in the main matter