Reinstatement and Juvenile Justice

The legal case discussed in this summary focuses on the court’s in-depth analysis of juvenile justice issues and the reinstatement of an individual whose appointment was canceled due to non-disclosure of a past criminal case. The court explored the implications of the appellant’s juvenile status during the criminal case, emphasizing the significance of providing a fair opportunity for justification. The court’s decision highlights the importance of considering special circumstances, especially pertaining to juveniles, in employment matters.

Facts

• Appellant was selected for training at Police Recruit Training Centre, Hoshiarpur in October 2014.
• Joined training on 1 November 2014.
• Appointment canceled on 19 February 2015 due to non-disclosure of criminal case from 1997.
• Filed writ petition challenging cancellation in High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• Single Judge considered appellant’s juvenile status during the 1997 criminal case and order of discharge in 2001.
• Order of cancellation set aside on 20 January 2016 with directions for reconsideration.
• Appellant was a juvenile during the 1997 case involving forged caste certificate.
• The appellant moved an application seeking discharge after a charge-sheet was filed against him.
• The learned ACJM found that the prosecution failed to collect sufficient evidence against the appellant.
• As a result, the appellant was discharged from the alleged offenses by an Order dated 15 December, 2001.
• Almost a decade later, an advertisement was published by the respondents for recruitment and selection of constables in Railway Protection Force on 23 February, 2011.
• The Division Bench of the High Court in 2011(14) SCC 709 set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal by an Order dated 6 May, 2016.

Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses

Arguments

• Appellant’s date of birth in school records is 15 July, 1985
• At the time of criminal case in 1997, he was 12 years old
• Appellant was discharged in 2001 as no evidence proved the charges against him
• In 2011, the appellant applied for a job and truthfully answered questions on prosecution or arrest
• His appointment was cancelled in 2015, citing misrepresentation, which was unfounded
• The appellant’s date of birth in school records is confirmed as 15 July, 1985, establishing him as a juvenile when a criminal complaint was filed against him in 1997.
• The appellant failed to disclose the criminal case against him in the attestation form, which was the basis for the cancellation of his appointment.
• The Division Bench upheld the cancellation citing material concealment by the appellant.

Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid

Analysis

• The appellant was involved in a criminal case as a juvenile and was discharged by the court of competent jurisdiction.
• The appellant’s candidature was canceled by the authorities despite the special circumstance of being a juvenile at the time of the incident not being considered.
• The Division Bench failed to acknowledge the appellant’s juvenile status during the legal proceedings.
• The nature of information not disclosed by the appellant was considered a suppression of material information in the attestation form filled by him.
• Information provided to the employer by a candidate regarding criminal history must be true, before or after entering service.
• Employer discretion on trivial convictions versus non-trivial ones may lead to cancellation of candidature or service termination.
• Acquittal in cases of moral turpitude or serious offenses may result in continued employment.
• Verification forms must be specific for determining suppression or false information.
• Any changes in detention, arrest, prosecution, bond, fines, conviction, debarment, acquittal, etc., after form submission must be immediately reported to the Union Public Service Commission or relevant authority
• Failure to report changes will be considered suppression of information
• Furnishing false information or suppressing facts may lead to termination of services
• Summarized conclusions were provided in para 38 of the judgment
• Various decisions of the Court were discussed
• Detailed discussions were undertaken before reaching the conclusions
• The appellant was not initially inclined to receive consequential benefits due to the appellant’s lack of work after termination.
• The appellant was never at fault, and no reasonable opportunity was given to him to justify his case.
• Authorities failed to consider that the appellant was a juvenile during the mentioned incidents.
• The authorities did not notice the peculiar facts of the case while exercising discretion.
• The Division Bench’s finding of suppression of material information was deemed unsustainable and requires to be set aside.

Also Read: Auction Upheld Despite Delay: Borrowers’ Conduct Shows Intent to Stall, Not Valid Reason for Cancellation

Decision

• The appeal has been allowed and the pending application(s) have been disposed of.
• The appellant is to be reinstated within one month and receive consequential benefits within two months.
• No costs are to be incurred by the appellant.
• The orders cancelling the appointment and the High Court judgment are quashed and set aside.
• The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits.

Case Title: UMESH CHANDRA YADAV Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL AND CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER . (2022 INSC 251)

Case Number: C.A. No.-001964-001964 / 2022

Click here to read/download original judgement