RAJEEV GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was appointed as Peon with the respondent bank on 28.12.1987. It was on the basis of Middle pass certificate produced by the appellant purportedly issued by the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali showing his date of birth as 05.08.1969. On that reckoning he was 18 years of age at the time of his appointment as it was projected that he is major. The appointment was given to him by the bank. However, it transpired later that the said certificate was forged, inasmuch as the correct date of birth of the appellant is 05.04.1971. The purpose of forging the certificate was to show him as major though he was only 16 years of age at the time of his appointment. When the aforesaid fact of producing the forged certificate came to the notice of the respondent bank, an FIR No. RC-42 was registered by the CBI on 28.11.2001 at Police Station SPE/CBI/ACB Chandigarh wherein he along with his father was impleaded under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and his father were convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala under the aforesaid provisions vide judgment dated 27.01.2006 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. The bank thereafter terminated the services of the appellant vide order dated 28.02.2006.

(2.) In so far as the order of Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Patiala is concerned, the same was challenged by filing appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala. In this appeal, the plea taken by the appellant was that since he was less than 18 years of age when the forged certificate was produced, the appellant was juvenile and was to be protection of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act') and could not be subjected to adultery justice system. This plea was accepted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala and the appellant was released on probation by modifying the judgment of the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.01.2012. After this judgment was passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, the appellant made a representation to the bank to set aside his termination and reinstate him in service. The plea raised was that in terms of Section 19 of the Act the commission of offence by him at the time when he was juvenile could not suffer any kind of disqualification and as per this provision even the relevant records of such conviction has to be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or prescribed reasonable period. The representation of the appellant was rejected by the respondents and against the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Questioning the validity of the judgment, the present intra-Court appeal is preferred. No doubt, the appellant has the right to take the benefit of Section 19 of the Act. The effect of that would be by his conviction under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code will not come in his way for any purpose whatsoever and it is to be treated as void, as if he was never convicted. However, to our mind, this aspect has no relevance to the issue at hand. What is to be examined in the present case is that the appellant was minor at the time when he got the appointment with the respondent bank. Secondly, this appointment was obtained on the basis of forged documents. Therefore, such an order was found ab-initio when obtained fraudulently on the basis of forged documents and in any case a minor could not have secured any appointment. It is for this reason that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition upholding the order of termination. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid approach of the learned Single Judge.