Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which directed the appointment of the respondent, Ramesh Bishnoi, to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The respondent had applied for the post in response to an advertisement dated 28.03.2015 issued by the Staff Selection Commission. He cleared the written examination and physical endurance test and was offered appointment on 15.09.2016. During the verification process, the respondent disclosed that an FIR (No.70/2009) under Sections 354, 447, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered against him in 2009, and that he was acquitted on 24.11.2011 due to lack of evidence after the matter was compromised. The Standing Screening Committee found him unsuitable for appointment due to the past criminal case, leading to cancellation of his appointment on 03.06.2017. The respondent challenged this cancellation before the Rajasthan High Court, which initially directed a fresh decision in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. However, the Screening Committee again rejected his claim on 16.01.2018, stating that the acquittal was due to lack of evidence and compromise, and the offence was serious. The High Court then set aside this rejection and directed the activation of the offer of appointment. The Union of India appealed to the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal, and then to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent was a minor (born on 05.09.1991) at the time of the alleged offence in 2009, and the charges were never proved as the complainant did not depose. The Court emphasized the principle of fresh start under Section 3(xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates erasure of past records of a child except in special circumstances, which were not present. The Court also noted that the respondent had made full disclosure and there was no suppression. Therefore, the denial of appointment was unjustified, and the respondent was entitled to all benefits of the writ court's judgment within 30 days.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Employment Eligibility - Criminal Antecedents - Juvenile Offender - The respondent was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF but his appointment was cancelled due to a past FIR under Sections 354, 447, 509 IPC registered when he was a minor. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and was acquitted due to lack of evidence, the denial of appointment was unjustified. The principle of fresh start under Section 3(xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 mandates erasure of past records of a child, and even a conviction as a juvenile cannot be held against him for employment. (Paras 8-10) B) Criminal Law - Moral Turpitude - Minor Offence - The alleged act of teasing a girl and catching her hand, committed when the respondent was a minor, does not constitute moral turpitude. The court noted that the complainant and her parents pardoned the respondent and did not give evidence, leading to acquittal. (Para 8) C) Service Law - Suppression of Facts - Full Disclosure - The respondent had fully disclosed the FIR and his acquittal in the application form. There was no suppression of material facts, and thus the denial of appointment on this ground was not sustainable. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent's appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF could be denied on the ground of a criminal case registered against him when he was a minor, despite his acquittal and full disclosure of the same.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the Rajasthan High Court. The respondent is entitled to all benefits of the writ court's judgment within 30 days from the date of the order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Juvenile Justice Act
- 2015
- Section 3(xiv) principle of fresh start
- acquittal due to lack of evidence
- no suppression of material facts
- moral turpitude
- employment eligibility
