The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the suppression of material facts regarding criminal cases rendered the petitioners unfit for appointment, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 and 2015 provided protection to the petitioners, who were juveniles at the time of the criminal proceedings, and warranted their reinstatement in service.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed by two writ petitioners challenging orders of discharge dated 1 March 2017and 18 February 2017 respectively and for issuance of a mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service with all consequential benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance of Advertisement number 1/2011 issued by the Respondent No.3 for recruitment on the post of Constable (GD) in Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) the petitioners applied and were selected. Before their training and appointment the petitioners had to submit their attestation forms where in column 12 they had to disclose their character and antecedents and as to whether any criminal case was pending against them or whether they had ever been tried. To this the petitioners answered in the negative as at that point of time no criminal case was pending against them. During the course of training, police verification reports of the petitioners were sought from the District Magistrates of their respective districts. In the police verification reports it came out that FIR was lodged against them individually but they were acquitted. However, since they had not disclosed this fact in the attestation form both the petitioners were discharged from their service.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner no.1, Rajkumar had submitted his attestation form on 22 June 2014 wherein he did not disclose his character and antecedents in Column 12 with regard to Case Crime No. 131 of 2003 under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. He was sent for training at ITBP Training Centre AALO, West Slang, Arunachal Pradesh on 30 October 2014. In the police verification report sought from district Allahabad it was informed that he was prosecuted but acquitted from the Court of ACJM. However, as a result of this verification report he was discharged while undergoing training 31 March 2015. The Respondents had failed to appreciate that the petitioner no.1 was cleanly acquitted from criminal charges by an order dated 24 September 2007 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. At the time of filing of his application form and at the time of signing of the attestation form no criminal case was pending. Also, petitioner no.1 was a juvenile at the time when the FIR was lodged against him as he was just nine years old. He was tried in a Regular Court instead of by Juvenile Justice Board and he was 13 years old when he was cleanly acquitted by the Court of ACJM.

4. The petitioner no.1 had moved this Court and by way of Writ Petition No. 57707/2015, "Rajkumar vs. Union of India and Others" and this court by an order dated 29 November 2016 had quashed the discharge order and remitted the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration of his candidature in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh. In pursuance of such order passed by the High Court the petitioner no.1 was called for personal hearing on 28 February 2017 but the Respondent No.4 in his order dated 1 March 2017 again proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of intentional suppression of material facts at the time of filling up of the attestation form.

5. It has been argued that the nature of the offence of which the petitioner had been accused along with his family members was trivial involving minor punishment. The petitioner was acquitted not as an outcome of benefit of doubt but he was honourably exonerated. This Court in its Order dated 29.11.2016 had directed the Respondent No.4 to adjudge the suitability of the candidate with reference to the nature of suppression, and the nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the petitioner no.1 was suitable for appointment to the post of Constable the respondent had acted mechanically by holding the petitioner no.1 unfit for the post alleging that he had furnished an affidavit stating incorrect f