Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Upendra Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And 5 Others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 38380 of 2017
Decided on : 20-02-2019
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 504 and 506 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 24 – RPF Rules 1987 – Rule 52.2 and 67.2 – Petition calls in question orders pursuant to which candidature of petitioner come to be cancelled – In terms of first order, respondents had taken position that petitioner had deliberately suppressed fact of his involvement in two criminal cases – Order assailed by way of Writ which came to be disposed of requiring respondents to reconsider candidature of petitioner bearing in mind principles enunciated by Supreme Court – Held, Petitioner who contended that charges which were levelled against petitioner were trivial in nature and must passed off and attributed to exuberance and intemperance of youth and clearly not viewed as disqualification for entry in Government service – Contention lastly raised with respect to provisions of Section 24 also merits due consideration – Considered view of Court and as is evident therefrom, even if juvenile convicted under provisions of 2015 Act same not liable to viewed as disqualification which may otherwise and ordinarily stand attached upon person convicted – Merits the matter being remanded to respondents for reevaluation of petitioners claim in light of legal provision which is adverted to on overall conspectus of aforesaid and in considered view of this Court impugned orders unsustainable – Petition allowed. (Paras: 11 to 13)
Facts of the case:
Petition calls in question orders pursuant to which candidature of petitioner come to be cancelled – In terms of first order, respondents had taken position that petitioner had deliberately suppressed fact of his involvement in two criminal cases – Order assailed by way of Writ which came to be disposed of requiring respondents to reconsider candidature of petitioner bearing in mind principles enunciated by Supreme Court.
Findings of the court:
Petitioner who contended that charges which were levelled against petitioner were trivial in nature and must passed off and attributed to exuberance and intemperance of youth and clearly not viewed as disqualification for entry in Government service – Contention lastly raised with respect to provisions of Section 24 also merits due consideration – Considered view of Court and as is evident therefrom, even if juvenile convicted under provisions of 2015 Act same not liable to viewed as disqualification which may otherwise and ordinarily stand attached upon person convicted – Merits the matter being remanded to respondents for reevaluation of petitioners claim in light of legal provision which is adverted to on overall conspectus of aforesaid and in considered view of this Court impugned orders unsustainable.
Result: Petition allowed
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This petition calls in question the orders dated 19 June 2015 and 12 May 2017 pursuant to which the candidature of the petitioner has come to be cancelled. In terms of the first order, the respondents had taken the position that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact of his involvement in two criminal cases bearing No. 152 of 2006 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 166 of 2009 under Sections 323, 504 IPC.
3. The order dated 19 June 2015 was assailed by way of Writ-A No. 45917 of 2015 which came to be disposed of on 13 December 2016 requiring the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & others, (2016) 8 SCC 471.
4. Pursuant to the directions issued on that writ petition, the second impugned order dated 12 May 2017 has come to be passed by which the respondent this time around has taken the following position:
“After personal hearing of the petitioner and on careful examination of the representation as well as related documents pertaining to the case, I have found that criminal cases under NCR No. 152/06 U/S 323, 506, 504 IPC & NCR No 166/09 U/S 323, 504 IPC is registered against him which are still pending trial. Though he declared about the criminal cases in his attestation form but at the time of filling up of attestation form his character was not unblemished.
The purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service and clearly speaks about the character and moral fiber of the candidates.
Furthermore, the standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding vital information is viewed seriously as a member of a disciplined force is liable to be judged on a higher pedestal. As such, apropos to the above, I found the matter of his suppression regarding his criminal case was deliberate with an intention to get the Government job and not due to any misconception.
That, vide, Railway Board order No. 88/SEC(E)/RC-3/6(IR)(trg.) dated 16.11.2005, it has been clearly instructed that, “In conformity with the extant policy of the government of India, it has been decided that, furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation form shall amount to unfitness of the candidates for appointment in the Force”
Hence, I have applied my mind and on evaluation of the facts on record, extant rules, and having accorded the opportunity of personal hearing and representation to the petitioner keeping with the principles of natural justice, and in light of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. and in exercise of the power vested under Rule 52.2 and 67.2 of the RPF Rules 1987, I hereby come to the considered conclusion as Appointing Authority that the above petitioner is not fit for Government Services and representation of the petitioner is rejected, and I hereby discharge Upendra Chauhan and cancel his candidature for appointment into the Government Service as a Constable in RPF/RPSF with immediate effect. The petitioner may be informed accordingly.” (emphasis supplied)
5. Insofar as the two criminal cases are concerned, in terms of a supplementary affidavit filed today and other material on record, learned counsel points out that the petitioner was tried as a juvenile in those cases in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[2015 Act] and ultimately the sa
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
