SURESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dtd. 6/5/2008 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that he has concealed about his involvement and conviction in a criminal case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted appointment on the post of Constable. Counsel submits that the petitioner was a juvenile when a criminal case was registered against him, and he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board for the said case whereby, he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Ss. 436, 457 & 380 I.P.C. Counsel submits that no sentence was awarded to the petitioner, but he was released on admonition, after his counselling, vide judgment dtd. 16/11/2004. Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment could not lead to any disqualification for the petitioner in getting any public employment as he was a juvenile at the time of committing the offence and during trial. Counsel submits that under this belief, he applied and did not disclose this fact in the application form for getting appointment on the post of Constable.

(3.) Counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under Sec. 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, "the Act of 2000"), a juvenile who has committed an offence, dealt under the provisions of this Act, shall not suffer any disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Counsel further submits that as per sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 19 of the Act of 2000, the Juvenile Justice Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after expiry of the period of appeal. Counsel submits that no appeal was submitted against the judgment of conviction of the petitioner and the petitioner was under the impression that his relevant record pertaining to his conviction was removed and under that bona fide belief, he did not disclose about the aforesaid judgment at the time of submission of his application form. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the appointment of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.