Point of Law: Rule is in line with Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Rule 54 allows inter-alia, any department or organization to register a complaint with police of offences against children.

JUDGMENT :

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsels for parties, the petition is heard for disposal.

2. This petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(a) To quash the FIR bearing no. 0234/2016 dated 29.05.2019, registered at P.S. Mukherjkee Nagar against the Petitioners and thereby quashing every other proceeding undertaken in the said FIR.

(b) Grant writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the letter/ complaint dated 21.02.2019 bearing No. F-11(15)Vig/DWCD/2018/40536 as written by the Respondent No. 2 to the concerned PS on the basis of which the FIR was registered against the Petitioners, as unconstitutional and illegal.

(c) Grant writ of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to revoke the suspension orders against the Petitioners and re-instate/re-enlist the Petitioners on regular basis.

(d) Any other Writ, Order or Direction which may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

3. Both petitioners filed above petition as being aggrieved by conducting of an extra-judicial disciplinary proceedings dated 31.10.2018 by the Preliminary Inquiry Committee of three members formed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 for the purpose of inquiring the alleged misconduct by the petitioners, which per se is in contradiction to the statutory provision of Section 8(3)(k) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred as JJ Act]. It is also alleged the said illegitimate proceedings eventually led to the registration of FIR No. 234/2019 under Section 75 and 82 of the said Act before police station Mukherjee Nagar.

4. It is alleged both the petitioners were dispensing their duties in JJB, being the Welfare Officers and were suspended in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 26.10.2018 prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding dated 31.10.2018.

5. The Section 8 of the JJ Act notes:-

“8. Powers, functions and responsibilities of the Board:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force but save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Board constituted for any district shall have the power to deal exclusively with all the proceedings under this Act, relating to children in conflict with law in the area of jurisdiction of such Board.

(2) The powers conferred on the Board by or under this may also be exercised by the High Court and the Children's Court, when the proceedings come before them under Section 19 or in appeal, revision or otherwise.

(3) The functions and responsibilities of the Board shall include:

(a) to (j) xxx xxx xxx

(k) order the police for registration of first information report for offences committed against any child in conflict with law, under this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, on a complaint made in this regard.”

6. Thus, it is argued the said provision clearly gives power of ordering FIR to the Juvenile Justice Board in the case of any offence and not to any Committee or any other authority or an official. In the instant case the respondent No. 3 purportedly received an undated complaint from few of the anonymous children in conflict with law, that the petitioners have a very questionable conduct towards them and also one of the guest teacher Deepika complained about the Petitioners regarding their inappropriate behavior towards her. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 wrote a letter dated 08.10.2018, compiling all the incidents as reported against the petitioners to the respondent No. 2 and thereafter one Preliminary Inquiry Committee was constituted vide Order No. F.11(15)/Vig./DWCD/ 2018/29668-71 dated 31.10.2018 for inquiring into the alleged misconduct of the Petitioners. The said committee submitted its report on 26.12.2018 and found the petitioners in violation of Rule 62, 66 and 75 o