Juveniles should not suffer disqualification and their records should be obliterated after a specified period of time, as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2458/2011, whereby the respondent’s said Original Application had been allowed.

2. The question, once again, for consideration is with regard to the concealment of criminal involvement in the application form as well as in the attestation form submitted by the applicant seeking appointment with the Delhi Police as a Constable (Executive). This issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar: (2011) 4 SCC 644. Based on that decision alone the respondent would have a strong case. However, in the present case, the facts are somewhat different inasmuch as the respondent was a juvenile at the time the criminal case was registered in which he was allegedly involved and, this makes the case of the respondent even stronger.

3. The respondent had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) with the Delhi Police on 18.11.2009 and he submitted an attestation form on 17.05.2010 in neither of which he disclosed his involvement in FIR 190/2006 which was registered under Sections 398/307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Sonipat, Haryana. Because of the fact that he had not mentioned about the criminal involvement, which was subsequently found at the stage of verification, a show cause notice had been issued to the respondent on 04.02.2011 requiring him to show cause as to why his services ought not to be terminated. However, the said show cause notice was withdrawn on 17.06.2011. Subsequently, on 30.06.2011, the services of the respondent were terminated under Rule 5 (1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

4. Being aggrieved by such termination, which admittedly was occasioned by the said concealment, the respondent filed the said Original Application which was ultimately allowed by virtue of the impugned order.

5. The Tribunal, while considering the case of the respondent, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and also took note of the fact that the respondent was a juvenile on the date on which the said FIR had been registered. The respondent had also been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board on 24.11.2006, that is, much prior to the date of his submitting the application and attestation form. Taking note of various provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), the Tribunal decided in favour of the respondent. In particular, the Tribunal referred to Section 19 (1) of the said Act which stipulated that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of the said Act, shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Section 19 (2) may also be noticed inasmuch as it stipulates that the Juvenile Justice Board is required to make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.

6. In other words, even where a juvenile is found to have committed an offence, he shall not suffer any disqualification and even the records are to be obliterated after a specified period of time. The intention of the Legislature is absolutely clear that insofar as juveniles are concerned, their criminal record is not to stand in their way in their future lives.

7. The present case is, of course, one where a juvenile was tried and has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board and, therefore, in any event, the respondent could not have suffered any disqualification whatsoever. In these circumstances, the action on the part of the petitioner to have terminated his services merely because the responde