Service Law:
Appointment – Cancellation of – On the ground that criminal case had been lodged against the candidate – Propriety of – Held: The criminal case accusing the delinquent of teasing a girl when he was minor, had resulted in acquittal – However, such offence is not even covered under the definition of moral turpitude – The delinquent cannot be deprived of a job on the basis of charges committed as a juvenile also in view of clause (xiv) of s. 3 of Juvenile Act – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s. 3 (xiv) – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 354. 447 and 590.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the complaint/FIR lodged against the respondent was to the effect that when he was a minor, he had teased a girl a few times and went to the extent of catching hold of her hand. However, the girl and her parents finally decided to pardon the respondent by not giving any evidence against him, resulting in the acquittal of the respondent. In the aforesaid facts, even if the aforesaid is found to be true, it cannot be said that the respondent had committed such a crime, which would be covered under the definition of moral turpitude, specially when the respondent is said to have committed the alleged offence when he was a minor. [Para 8] [1100-G-H; 1101-A]
2.1 The respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation, i.e. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the said Act. Clause (xiv) of Section 3 clearly providedes that all the past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances. [Para 9] [1101-C-F]
2.2 In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was acquitted of the charges. However, even if he had been convicted, the same could not have been held against him for getting a job, as admittedly he was a minor when the alleged offences were committed and the charges had been framed against him. Section 3(xiv) provides for the same and the exception of special circumstances does not apply to the facts of the present case. [Para 9] [1101-G-H; 1102-A]
3. The respondent had very fairly disclosed about the charges which had been framed and his acquittal on the basis of no evidence having been adduced by the complainant against the respondent can not be said to be a suppression by the respondent, on the basis of which he could be deprived of a job, for which he was duly selected after following the due process and appointment having been offered to him. [Para 10] [1102-B-C]
Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.