A juvenile is not required to disclose criminal antecedents in employment applications, as per the Juvenile Justice Act, protecting them from stigma.

J U D G M E N T

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the respondent no.2, which upheld the Order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the respondent no.4, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of the petitioner furnishing false information against question nos. 12 (a), (b) and (c) of the Attestation Form (Verification Roll) at the time of his enrolment into service.

2. We may note herein the brief facts of the case.

3. The petitioner successfully qualified the open competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and was offered the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) vide Memorandum No. 2/31/12/SSB(SSC)/Rectt. CT(GD)/ Pers-II/5700-5702 dated 04.03.2013. He was directed to report to the Commandant, Recruit Training Centre (RTC), SSB, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh on or before 02.04.2013.

4. While joining the service, the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions specified in paragraph 2(xi) of the offer of appointment, which was issued to him through the aforesaid Memorandum. According to the terms and conditions outlined in the offer of appointment, the petitioner’s services were liable to be terminated inter alia in case of him furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment, if any of the facts or statements mentioned by him in the Verification Form are found to be false or incorrect, or if any adverse finding is reported against him.

5. On 15.03.2013, the petitioner joined the RTC, SSB, Gorakhpur, U.P., after filling up the Attestation Form/Verification Roll as required under Rule 4 (B) of the SSB Rules, 2009. In the said form, he stated in response to question no. 12 (a), (b) and (c) that he had never been arrested, prosecuted, or kept under detention, or imprisoned.

6. Subsequently, on 01.04.2013, he submitted an undertaking stating that if any adverse report arises during the verification of his character and antecedents through police authorities or local administration, his services may be terminated without assigning any reason.

7. Thereafter, vide the letter dated 12.07.2013, the respondents sent the abovementioned Verification Roll to the District Magistrate, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 2 of 17 Deoria, U.P.

8. In response, the District Magistrate, in a letter dated 20.03.2014, informed that an F.I.R No. 449A/2006, dated 25.10.2006 was pending against the petitioner under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at the Lar Police Station, Deoria, and the case was currently sub-judice before the learned Upper Civil Judge (Junior Division), District and Sessions Court, Deoria.

9. Upon receiving the verification report, the Commandant, 58^th Bn./respondent no.4 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2014 to the petitioner, directing him to explain why he should not be terminated from service under Section 25 of the SSB Act, 2007 read with Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009 for providing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment.

10. In his reply dated 29.04.2014 to the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner stated that the aforesaid case had been lodged against him in 2006, when he was an adolescent, and he had no knowledge of the said case.

11. Thereafter, vide a letter dated 10.07.2014, the respondent no.4 requested the Superintendent of Police, Deoria/respondent no.5 to confirm whether the petitioner was aware of the registration of an FIR against him at the Police Station.

12. The respondent no.5, vide the letter dated 26.07.2014, informed the respondent no.4 that the petitioner was well aware of the pending criminal case as he had been arrested by the police and sent to jail on 12.11.2006, and that the case is pending before the Court.

13. After considering all the facts, the respondent no.4, being the disciplinary authority, terminated the pe