LexUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus RAMESH BISHNOI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1097
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
RAMESH BISHNOI
(Civil Appeal No.9109 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 29, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
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
[2019] 14 S.C.R. 1097
1097
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
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.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 7 SCR 445
referred to. Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9109
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.
702 of 2018
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1099
Aman Lekhi, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rekha
Pandey, Ms. Pooja Dhar, B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Kumar Prashant, Ms. Jayati Sharma,
Manish Sharma, Virag Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VINEET SARAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal pertains to the appellants (Union of India) denying
appointment to the respondent, (even though selected) on the post of
Sub-Inspector, on the ground of a criminal case having been registered
in the past against the respondent.
3. Brief fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.