The judgment established the principle of leniency towards minor indiscretions by young individuals and the importance of considering the nature of the offense in government service decisions.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.09.2019 passed by the Commandant, BMP-7, Katihar by which the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Military Police, Northern Zone, Muzaffarpur, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected as also the order dated 28.05.2020, whereby and where-under the memorial of the petitioner has also been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of constable in BMP-7 on 10.07.2015. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 27.10.2018 was issued to the petitioner wherein charges were framed against the petitioner to the effect that at the time of filling the application form for appointment on the post of constable in pursuance to the Advertisement no. 2 of 2014, the petitioner, in paragraph no. 8 of the character verification declaration form, had mentioned in his own hand-writing that against him no civil or criminal case is pending, however, upon enquiry made by the respondents, it has transpired that the petitioner is an accused in Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 61 of 2014, dated 17.3.2014, under Section 147, 148, 149, 448, 323, 378, 307, 344 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, hence he has misled the department and obtained employment, thus it is apparent that the petitioner had given false information and had engaged in cheating and fraudulent behaviour.

4. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry and had submitted his enquiry report dated 02.07.2019 finding the charges to have been proved. The Disciplinary authority had then issued a second show cause notice dated 22.8.2019 to which the petitioner had submitted his reply and then the order of removal from service qua the petitioner herein was passed on 15.09.2019 by the Commandant BMP-7, Katihar. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal, however, the same was also rejected by the D.I.G., Military Police, Northern Zone, Muzaffarpur, vide order dated 28.02.2020. Lastly, the petitioner had filed a memorial, however, the same has also stood dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2020.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 61 of 2014 by a judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Nawada and secondly, it is a settled law that a person cannot be debarred from the Government service merely on the basis of pendency of a criminal case. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 744 (Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar), Paragraph no. 7 to 13 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

"7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent should have disclosed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case even if he had later been acquitted. Hence, it was submitted that his candidature was rightly cancelled.

8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.

9. In this connection, we may refer to