"Juvenile not required to divulge his criminal antecedents" : Delhi HC sets aside dismissal, directs CRPF to reinstate personnel

By Dhiraj Beniwal
New Delhi [India], March 6 : The Delhi High Court in a recent judgement directed the CRPF to reinstate a man who was dismissed over non-disclosure of his past involvement in a rape case lodged when he was a minor in 2007.
The High court held that the petitioner was not under legal obligation to disclose his criminal antecedent, being a minor at the relevant time.
The division bench comprising justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain directed the CRPF to reinstate the petitioner with all co-consequential benefits. The bench said that he was dismissed solely on the ground that he suppressed the material fact about his involvement in a criminal case.
"However, since the petitioner was under no obligation to reveal about his previous involvement, being minor at the relevant time, there was no reason or occasion for the respondents to have dismissed him from service," the High Court held in the judgement passed on February 23, 2024.
" Thus, we have no hesitation in allowing the present writ petition. Respondents are accordingly directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits," the High Court ordered.
The division bench said, "Undoubtedly, in the present case there is non-revealing of the factum of a pending criminal case but the legal position seems quite clear and settled. A juvenile is not required to divulge about his previous antecedents."
The High court held, " Thus, applying the legal position and keeping in mind the provisions of the J.J. Act, it becomes quite obvious that the petitioner was under no legal obligation to have revealed the fact about his previous involvement in a criminal case, for an offence which he allegedly committed when he was a minor."
The High court also raised a question over delay in verification by the CRPF.
"There is also one surprising aspect. Petitioner joined CRPF in the year 2014 and it is not elucidated by the respondent as to why the verification was done after a huge delay of around 8 years," the division bench said in the judgement of February 23, 2024.
Petitioner had joined Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 07.11.2014. After his enlistment in CRPF, he was required to fill up a Verification Form revealing about his criminal antecedents, if any.
He was, admittedly, involved in one criminal case registered at P.S. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC in 2007.
One of the columns in Verification Roll Form required any such person to give information about his involvement in any criminal case.
While responding to such question, petitioner held back information about his aforesaid involvement and left the relevant column blank and unfilled. Eventually when the verification was received from the concerned Police Station, the factum about his aforesaid involvement stood revealed.
Based on the aforesaid revelation, inquiry was initiated against him. The charge regarding suppression of the material fact was held proved, which eventually resulted in his dismissal from service on 20.10.2022.
The order of dismissal was upheld by the competent authority dismissing his appeal.
He challenged the orders by filing a petition in Delhi High Court through advocate K K Sharma.
He challenged the order on the grounds that When the form was filled up by him in the year 2014, the relevant column was left blank as he was not aware about any action taken by the police after the registration of the FIR for rape.
His major ground was that he was juvenile at the relevant point of time and, therefore, it was not obligatory for him to have revealed the aforesaid information in light of the objective and scheme of Juvenile Justice (Care And
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act) and various judicial pronouncements.
It was also stated that he had no knowledge about the filing of any chargesheet as the FIR was registered in the year 2007, the chargesheet was filed before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board after a gap of 15 years.
On the other hand, Central Government argued that utmost truthfulness was required
from any person joining a disciplined force, and suppression of material fact was not only deliberate but also actuated with apparent malafide intention and, therefore, the petitioner was rightfully dismissed from service.
The division bench noted that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was named as an accused in the aforesaid FIR which was registered in the year
2007.
There is also no dispute that the petitioner was juvenile at the time of the commission of alleged offence. The incident of the alleged rape took place on 15.05.2007 and admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 14.02.1992, which means that at the time of commission of offence his age was 15 years 3 months 1 day, the bench further noted.