SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 842

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Umesh Chandra Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General And Chief Security Commissioner & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 1964 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 871 of 2017)
Decided on : 02-03-2022

Headnote:

Suppression of Material Information - Juvenile - Indian Penal Code, Section 465, 468, 471 - The judgment discusses the appellant's suppression of a criminal case instituted against him when he was a juvenile, and the subsequent cancellation of his appointment. The court considered the attestation form, the nature of the offense, and the appellant's juvenile status at the time of the alleged offense and discharge. The court relied on the legal principles established in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, 2016(8) SCC 471 to conclude that the cancellation of the appellant's appointment was unsustainable due to the special circumstances of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a juvenile at the time, was charged with preparing a forged caste certificate. He was discharged from the alleged offenses in 2001. After being selected for a position, his appointment was canceled due to the nondisclosure of the criminal case from his juvenile years.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the cancellation of the appellant's appointment was unsustainable due to the special circumstances of the case, including his juvenile status at the time of the alleged offense and discharge.

Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's suppression of the criminal case from his juvenile years and the subsequent cancellation of his appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles established in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, 2016(8) SCC 471 to conclude that the cancellation of the appellant's appointment was unsustainable due to the special circumstances of the case.

Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the orders canceling the appellant's appointment were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant was indisputedly a juvenile when a criminal case was instituted against him on 25th October, 1997 for offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC with an allegation that he had fraudulently prepared a forged caste certificate. After the chargesheet came to be filed against him, he moved an application seeking discharge and the learned ACJM recorded a categorical finding that prosecution has failed to collect sufficient evidence against the appellant and he was discharged from the alleged offences by an Order dated 15th December, 2001.

3. After almost a decade thereafter, the advertisement came to be published by the respondents dated 23rd February, 2011 for holding recruitment and selection of constables in Railway Protection Force. In pursuance to the advertisement, selection process was initiated in June 2014 and after undergoing the process of selection, appellant was finally selected and sent for training to Police Recruit Training Centre, Hoshiarpur by letter dated 7th October, 2014. Pursuant thereto, he joined the training center on 1st November 2014. The appellant was shocked when he was served with the Order cancelling his appointment by order dated 19th February, 2015 on the premise of nondisclosure of criminal case being instituted against him in the year 1997.

4. The Order dated 19th February, 2015 regarding cancellation of his appointment came to be challenged by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad.

5. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the material available on record and also the fact that he was a juvenile when the criminal case was instituted against him in the year 1997 and the fact that the learned trial Judge had passed the order of discharge dated 15th December, 2001 arrived at the conclusion that it was not the case of suppression of material information which may deprive him of his appointment and placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2011(14) SCC 709, set aside the order of cancellation dated 19th February, 2015 with a direction to reconsider the case of the appellant afresh in light of the observations made under the judgment dated 20th January, 2016.

6. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20th January, 2016 was the subject matter of challenge in appeal filed at the instance of respondents. The Division Bench of the High Court proceeded on a straight jacket formula on the premise that since the fact of criminal case once instituted against him is not disclosed, that appears to be the material suppression and in consequence thereof, while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowed the appeal by an Order dated 6th May, 2016 that became the subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this fact is not disputed that the date of birth of the appellant which is recorded in the school records is 15th July, 1985 and on 25th October 1997, when the criminal case was instituted against him, he was 12 years of age. No such charges, at all, could have been levelled against the juvenile of an allegation that he had fraudulently prepared a forged caste certificate and in mechanical process, the chargesheet came to be filed but the learned trial Judge on examination of the record, discharged the appellant by an Order dated 15th December, 2001 after recording a categorical finding that there was no evidence available on record on the basis of which the charge could be prima facie proved against the appellant for either of the offences levelled against him and after a decade, the process of selection was initiated by the respondents pursuant to an advertisement dated 23rd February, 2011 wherein he was required to indicate by filing an attesta


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top