Gobind Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India and Ors
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20180 of 2013
======================================================
Gobind Kumar Singh Son Of Dinbandhu Singh Resident Of Village-
Bajarayan, P.S.- Sahar, Distrct- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India and Ors
2. The Deputy I.G. Sector Head Quarter Ssb, Pilibhit, U.P.
3. The Commandant, 43rd Ssb Bn Jeolikote, Nainital, Uttar Khand
4. The Commandant, 43rd Ssb Batalian, Girijapur, U.P.
5. Commandant, Ssb East Block, V.R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 111006
6. The I.G., Ssb, Frontier, Head Quarter, Rukanpur, Baily Road, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Yash Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi A.S.G.
For the UOI : Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv (ASG)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh (C.G.C.)
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Neha Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 11-05-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) Direction against order dated
29.05.2013 issued by Deputy I.G., SSB by
which the rejection of appeal petition
communicated to the petitioner at Bhojpur,
Bihar, on basis of wrong F.I.R. before
incompetent Court of law.
(ii) That the petitioner further prays for
direction against order dated 28.08.2012
issued by Commandant 43rd Batalian,
Jeolikota by which petitioner has been
terminated without application of mind and
on basis of false F.I.R. / charges filed before
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
2/22
incompetent Court of law.
(iii) For direction on respondents to reinstate
the petitioner as the respondent acted
contrary to the Acts and Rules and without
application of mind.”
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
petition are that the petitioner, being eligible for appointment on
the post of Constable, submitted his application for being
appointed as a Constable (General Duty) in the Sashstra Seema
Bal ( hereinafter referred to as SSB). Pursuant thereto, he was
called for physical, written and medical examination, for the
th
purposes of a selection, which was held at 12 Battalian of
SSB, Kisanganj Bihar. The petitioner was selected and vide
letter no. 32164-32165 dated 17.10.2011 issued under the
signature of Commandant, Directorate General, SSB, New
Delhi the petitioner was appointed as Constable (General Duty)
in the pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200/- plus grade pay of Rs.
2000/- (PB-1) alongwith other applicable allowances, as
admissible to the Central Government Employees. Accordingly,
the petitioner gave his joining before the Commandant, Uttar
Pradesh on 15.11.2011. As per the appointment letter dated
17.10.2011, the petitioner was to give an undertaking, at the
time of joining with regard to the fact that if any adverse report
with regard to character and antecedent would come to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
3/22
knowledge during verification and in the event of furnishing
false or incorrect information, at the time of appointment or any
fact or statement mentioned by the candidate in the verification
form, being found false or incorrect or any adverse finding
being reported against him, his service shall be liable to be
terminated without assigning any reason. In compliance of the
said condition mentioned in the appointment letter, the
petitioner reported before the Commandant, Girijapuri (U.P.) on
12.11.2011 alongwith original certificates and duly filled up
form which contained necessary information, including the
clause-12 of the attestation form dated 12.11.2011. During
course of verification of the antecedents/credentials/character of
the petitioner, it came to the knowledge of the authorities, that
Sahar P.S. Case No. 99 of 2004 and Sahar P.S. Case No.129 of
2005 was pending against the petitioner. It is the case of the
petitioner that when the criminal cases were lodged against the
petitioner, he was a minor and therefore, there was no case
pending against the petitioner in the eyes of laws. A show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.07.2012, with regard to
giving incorrect information of pendency of criminal case
against him. The petitioner duly submitted his reply to the show
cause notice issued to him, however, without initiation of any
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
4/22
proceeding, the petitioner is said to have been terminated by the
RD
order contained in letter No.ESSTT.11/43
BN/SSB/ESTT/PR(GKS)’12/13507-17 dated 28.08.2012 issued
rd
under the signature of the Commandant, 43 Battalian, SSB,
Jeolikote as per Rule 23 of the SSB Act and Rules, 2009 with
immediate effect. The petitioner filed statutory appeal before the
appellate authority however, the same was also dismissed,
without considering the defence taken by the petitioner in his
rd
memo of appeal vide order No.G-164-C&A/Appeal/GKS/43
Bn/- 7047-50 dated 29.05.2013 issued under the signature of the
DIG Sector Headquarter, SSB, Pilibhit.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that at the time of institution of the First Information Report,
due to wrong age given by the informant, the case was pending
before the Court of learned C.J.M, Bhojpur at Ara and the same
was not transferred to the competent Court i.e. the Juvenile
Justice Board. The petitioner was granted bail by the competent
Court on 26.08.2004 and 23.01.2006 respectively in Sahar P.S.
Case No. 99 of 2004 and Sahar P.S. Case No.129 of 2005.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner attained majority on 15.01.2006 and no First
Information Report was filed against the petitioner between
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
5/22
15.11.2006 to 12.11.2011. The First Information Report, which
was lodged in the year 2004-2005 relates to the period, when the
petitioner was minor and was pending before the incompetent
Court as per law, therefore, no valid/lawful case was pending
against the petitioner in between the period 16.08.2004 to
14.11.2006, as those First Information Reports were not before
any competent Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that when the petitioner filled up the application form
and gave the undertaking on 12.11.2011, there was no case
pending before any competent Court of law and no First
Information Report or charge-sheet was filed before any
competent Court of law. He further submits that on the
application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court, which
was not competent to try the case of the petitioner, vide order
dated 29.10.2012 a direction was issued to the office, to send the
records of the case to the J.J.B., Arrah and thereafter, the J.J.B.
declared the petitioner to be juvenile. Similarly, Sahar P.S. Case
No. 129 of 2005 was transferred by the Competent Court, on the
basis of the documents and petition filed by the petitioner, vide
order dated 27.10.2012, directed whereby the office was to send
the records of the case to the J.J.B., Arrah and thereafter the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
6/22
J.J.B vide order dated 03.12.2012 declared the petitioner to be
juvenile. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
J.J.B., Arrah, after trial i.e. Trial No. 364 of 2003 arising out of
Sahar P.S. Case No. 99 of 2004 and Trial No. 274 of 2013,
arising out of Sahar P.S. Case No. 129 of 2005, proceeded to
acquit the petitioner in both the cases vide order dated
24.06.2013.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has not suppressed any material facts, which
is legally valid and the respondent authorities acted on the basis
of false and illegal charges in the name of petitioner, which was
pending before the incompetent Court of law. He submits that
pendency of any criminal case, based on false/wrong First
Information Report, before an incompetent Court, cannot be
said to be the correct fact and therefore, the information
provided by the petitioner was correct. An Interlocutory
Application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2017 (6374 of 2017) has also
been filed, bringing on record the order dated 30.08.2016 passed
by the respondent no. 02 i.e. the Deputy I.G., Sector
Headquarter, SSB, Pilibhit, whereby the review preferred by the
petitioner on 17.08.2016 was rejected. Vide order dated
22.09.2025 passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
7/22
Court, the said Interlocutory Application was dismissed due to
non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Subsequently, I.A. No. 02 of 2026 was filed to restore the I.A.
No. 01 of 2017 and a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 19.02.2026 proceeded to allow the
Interlocutory Application No. 02 of 2026 and I.A. No. 01 of
2017 was restored.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that at the time of institution of the criminal case
admittedly, the petitioner was a juvenile and in terms of Rule, 19
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, it is not necessary to disclose the pendency of criminal
case against him since Rule 19 provides that “ notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has
committed an offence and has been dealt with under the
provisions of this act shall not suffered disqualification, if any,
attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. It further
provides that the Board shall make an order directing that the
relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the
expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as
prescribed under rules as the case may be”. On the basis of the
Rule, 19, he submits that a juvenile, who commits an offence
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
8/22
while he was a juvenile and has been dealt with under the
provisions of this act, cannot suffer any disqualification on
account of conviction or an offence under such law. In the
present case, admittedly the petitioner was a juvenile at the time
of occurrence and therefore, it was not incumbent upon him to
disclose the pendency of the criminal case and further he has
been acquitted in the case later on, after his appointment.
Therefore, the order passed by the authorities of the SSB in
terminating the services of the petitioner is in complete violation
of the provisions contained in section 19 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. He further submits
that the Juvenile Justice Act has been enacted by the Parliament
to protect a juvenile in conflict with law. The basic purpose of
section 19 of the J.J. Act, 2000 is that there shall not be any
stigma against such juvenile, even if convicted of an offence,
that has been dealt with under the provisions of the J.J. Act,
2000. He submits that such a juvenile shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction of the offence.
He further submits that section 21 of the J.J. Act, 2000 prohibits
publication of name of a juvenile in conflict with law with the
object of protecting his/her identity from an adverse
consequences on account of conviction for an offence
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
9/22
committed as a juvenile and the records of the case pertaining to
the criminal involvement of a juvenile are to be obliterated after
the specified period, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for his
reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of
the Delhi High Court dated 27.01.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No.
5015 of 2018 (Santosh Kr. Yadav @ Ranjan Vs. The Union of
India and Ors.) , wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench in
paragraph nos. 19, 20, 30, 36 and 40, it has been held as
follows:-
“19. He submitted that the respondent no.4
terminated the petitioner's service vide the
order dated 15.12.2014, solely based on the
communication dated 26.07.2014 received
from the Superintendent of Police, Deoria,
which wrongly reported that the petitioner
was sent to jail on 12.11.2006. He submitted
that the information obtained by the
petitioner through Right to Information, vide
letter No. 23/Jan Soochna dated 03.01.2018,
conclusively proves that the petitioner was
neither arrested nor sent to jail. Therefore,
the termination order dated 15.12.2014 is
void ab initio and was passed without
justifiable cause.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
10/22
20. He further submitted that due to an
ongoing land dispute between the
petitioner's family and their extended family,
an FIR No. 449/2006 was lodged by the
paternal uncle of the petitioner under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 452, 504 and
506 IPC against their extended family
members. In retaliation, one of the
individuals named in the said FIR, filed a
counter FIR No. 449A/2006 under Sections
147, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, in which
the petitioner along with other family
members, was named as an accused. He
further contended that the petitioner had no
role whatsoever in the above case and was
falsely implicated by his extended family
members out of pure vengeance.
30. Having considered the submissions of the
learned counsels for the parties and perused
the record, we may begin by noting that the
primary submission of the petitioner is that
on the day of the occurrence of the offence,
that is, 22.10.2006, the petitioner was a
juvenile, having completed 15 years 02
months and 12 days of age. Even if he is
convicted for the offences with which he has
been charged, he shall not suffer
disqualification as per the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 and also as per the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
11/22
earlier Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, 'JJ Act,
2000').
36. The learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently submitted that the petitioner had
not furnished any incorrect information
about himself as he had given correct
answers to question nos. 12 (a), (b) and (c)
in his Attestation Form (Verification Roll),
which required him to give details regarding
whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted or
kept under detention or imprisonment. As the
petitioner was not arrested, detained or
imprisoned, therefore, he had answered the
said questions in the negative. Further, being
hardly 15/16 years of age, he could not have
comprehended that he was facing a criminal
trial and was being prosecuted, more so
since it was a family dispute, therefore, he
had furnished the information in his
Attestation Form (Verification Roll) as not
being prosecuted. He submitted that the
respondent no.4 had erroneously placed
reliance on the report of the respondent no.5,
who had stated that the petitioner was sent
to jail in respect of the aforementioned FIR
No.449A/2006 on 12.11.2006, whereas the
petitioner has furnished on record the
information received by him through the
Superintendent, District Jail, Deoria,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
12/22
through RTI, who had reported that
petitioner was not confined in jail in the
criminal case related to FIR No.449A/2006.
40. We find that the issue raised in the
present petition is squarely covered by
Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs.
Sandeep Kumar (supra), relied upon by the
petitioner In the said case, while dealing
with an effectively similar issue when the
candidature of the petitioner therein was
cancelled because he had concealed the fact
of his involvement in a criminal case under
Sections 325 and 34 IPC and had made a
wrong statement in his application form, the
Supreme Court held as under:
"8. We respectfully agree with
the Delhi High Court that the
cancellation of his
candidature was illegal, but
we wish to give our own
opinion in the matter. When
the incident happened the
respondent must have been
about 20 years of age. At that
age young people often
commit indiscretions, and
such indiscretions can often
been condoned. After all,
youth will be youth. They are
not expected to behave in as
mature a manner as older
people. Hence, our approach
should be to condone minor
indiscretions made by young
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
13/22
people rather than to brand
them as criminals for the rest
of their lives.
12. It is true that in the
application form the
respondent did not mention
that he was involved in a
criminal case under Section
325/34 IPC Probably he did
not mention this out of fear
that if he did so he would
automatically be disqualified.
At any event, it was not such a
serious offence like murder,
dacoity or rape, and hence a
more lenient view should be
taken in the matter"
10. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents-Union of India and its authorities
submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of
Constable (General Duty) in the SSB vide order dated
rd
17.10.2011 and he reported for duties at 43 Battalian, SSB
Girijapuri on 15.11.2011. He gave an undertaking that his
appointment is being considered in SSB, subject to the pending
detailed character and antecedent verification from the District
Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, that in the event of reporting
any type of adverse entry against him in the detailed character
and antecedent verification by the police/ District Magistrate,
his service may be terminated forthwith, without assigning any
reason. The respondents vide fax message No. 1954 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
14/22
10.02.2012 asked to depute a special messenger to the
concerned District authority for obtaining the report of
verification of C & A in respect of the petitioner and the same
was received vide letter no. 529 dated 24.02.2012 with adverse
remarks that the petitioner is involved in case no. 99 of 2004
dated 16.08.2004 under difference Sections of the Indian Penal
Code and Case No. 129 of 2004 dated 28.10.2005 under
different Sections of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police
Station Sahar, District Bhojpur. After taking necessary
permission, a direction was issued to provide a copy of the
verification report to the petitioner and to ask the petitioner to
submit his reply, if any or else it will be assumed that he has
nothing to say and action would be taken against him as per the
SSB Act, 2007 and Rules, 2009. The petitioner was given 12
days C.L. to bring clearance from the concerned Police Station,
which was intimated to the unit vide fax message ending no.
524 dated 14.04.2012.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner submitted an explanation, along with affidavit
from Notary, Civil Court, Arrah that he has falsely been
implicated in the above mentioned cases. The re-verification of
the cases lodged against the petitioner was done through the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
15/22
District Magistrate, Arrah, Bhojpur vide letter no. 5014 dated
17.05.2012. The District Magistrate, Arrah vide his letter no.
1758 dated 09.06.2012 again informed that the petitioner is
involved in both the cases mentioned in the verification report.
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.07.2012,
giving him 30 days time for submitting his reply that why
disciplinary action be not initiated against him. The reply was
submitted by the petitioner and from perusal of the same, it
transpired that the petitioner has knowingly suppressed the facts
and submitted false information in column 11 of the attestation
form for securing his appointment as a Constable (General
Duty) in the SSB. The concealment of his involvement in
criminal cases was evidently established and as per the terms
and conditions laid down at para-2 (xi) of the offer of the
appointment dated 17.10.2011 and para-9 of the appointment
order dated 30.11.2011, the disciplinary authority after carefully
examining and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, terminated the petitioner from service in accordance with
Rule, 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority, being devoid
of merit vide his order dated 29.05.2013.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
16/22
that the petitioner at the time of his appointment in SSB had
knowingly furnished false information, for securing his
appointment in SSB, for which charges were levelled against the
petitioner under Rule 23 of the SSB Rules and the same were
proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Further the petitioner has
been acquitted vide order dated 24.06.2013 by giving benefit of
doubt, but it is not the question of acquittal in a criminal case,
rather it is the concealment of the material facts/ criminal case,
on which ground the petitioner has been terminated. The
petitioner has been terminated and charged under Rule 23 of the
SSB Act and Rule 2009 for furnishing false information at the
time of his enrollment, which is a serious offence under Rule 23
of the SSB Rules, 2009 and the petitioner has rightly been
terminated from service without assigning any reason, as per the
terms and conditions laid down in the offer of appointment.
Further the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case
after his termination from service i.e. 24.06.2013 and it is an
admitted position that the petitioner did not mention about the
pendency of the case at the time of his appointment.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Union of India and its authorities further submits
that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable before this
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
17/22
Court since, the order has been passed at Pilibhit and New
Delhi, therefore, this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain
the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner to the effect in
paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition, that the order has been
communicated at his permanent address, is of no consequence
since the departmental proceeding was conducted in Pilibhit and
the order of termination was passed at Pilibhit. Further the
order passed by the appellate authority and the order under
review were passed at New Delhi, therefore, there is no question
of maintainability of the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.
14. The learned counsel for the Union of India
refers to and relies on a judgment of a learned Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court dated 17.02.2026 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
16559 of 2014 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors.) ,
whereby the issue of maintainability was under consideration
and the learned Co-ordinate Bench after considering the issue
and further relying upon another judgment referred to in
paragraph no. 3 of order dated 17.02.2026 disposed of the writ
petition with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate
remedy, before the competent Court, having jurisdiction in the
State of Assam within a period of three months from the date of
the order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
18/22
15. The learned counsel for the Union of India and
its authorities finally submits that in view of the fact and the
judicial pronouncement of this Court by the learned Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on
the issue of maintainability.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, it is an admitted fact that
the petitioner, pursuant to his appointment, gave his joining on
15.11.2011. In terms of the appointment, he gave an undertaking
at the time of joining with regard to any adverse report relating
to his character and antecedent. In terms of the said undertaking,
he gave an information/undertaking that he is not involvement
in any criminal case. Later on, during course of verification, it
came to the knowledge of the authorities that Sahar P.S. Case
no. 99 of 2004 and Sahar P.S. case no. 129 of 2005 were
pending against the petitioner. It is further an admitted fact that
at the time of lodging of the criminal case, he was a minor and
did not disclose about pendency of the case. He was acquitted in
both the criminal cases i.e. Trial No. 364 of 2013, arising out
Sahar P.S. Case no. 99 of 2004 and Trial No. 274 of 2013,
arising out of Sahar P.S. Case No. 129 of 2005 vide judgment
dated 24.06.2013 i.e. after his joining on 15.11.2011. The law in
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
19/22
this regard is very much clear. This Court after considering the
case of (Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.) reported in
(2016) 8 SCC 417 and ( Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs.
Sandeep Kumar) reported in 2011 (4) SCC 644 and several
other cases, vide judgment dated 13.02.2026 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 13364 of 2023 and its analogues case proceeded to record in
paragraph nos. 25, 26 and 27 as follows:-
“25. After having gone through the
judgments placed before this court, I find
that in the case of Sandeep Kumar (Supra),
Avtar Singh (Supra) and Ravindra Kumar
(Supra) , the order of acquittal of the
petitioners in the criminal case(s) had been
recorded, prior to verification.
26. The judgement in the case of Nirmala
Kumari (Supra) would cover these cases. I
would reproduce paragraph no. 38 of the
judgement in the case of Avtar Singh
(Supra) which is here under:
38.4- In case there is suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal
case where conviction or acquittal had
already been recorded before filing of the
application/verification form and such
fact later comes to the knowledge of the
employer, any of the following recourses
appropriate to the case may be adopted:
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
20/22
27. The case is clearly distinguishable, since
in the present cases, no order of acquittal
had been recorded before the verification.
The two lines of judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and the Learned Co-
ordinate benches of this Court have been
rendered in different set of facts and are
clearly distinguishable. The facts of these
cases are identical to the cases in which the
Learned Co-ordinate benches have taken the
view that in view of Rule 673 of the Bihar
Police Manual, the petitioners in those cases
would not be entitled for the reliefs.”
17. In a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India Civil Appeal No. _ 2026, arising out of special
Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11145-11146 of 2025 (State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Malik) dealing with
the similar nature of case in paragraph no. 18.1 has held as
follows:-
“18.1 We have perused the Judgment dated
11.02.2021 passed by the Services Tribunal
carefully. To our minds, the core reasoning
of the Services Tribunal is erroneous. A
person claiming parity or applying for
consideration of his case for appointment
has to clearly disclose and spell out all
material factors, including medical fitness. It
is only thereafter, that the authorities would
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
21/22
be obliged to consider the same in
accordance with law. However, it is not in
dispute that the Respondent never disclosed
before the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun
District, that he had knock knee. Pausing
here, it was well within the Respondent's
knowledge that earlier his appointment was
cancelled on this very ground. Unfortunately
for the Respondent, we are of the opinion
that such act is nothing short of deliberate
suppression for the reason that the
Respondent was aware that such disclosure,
per se, would disentitle him from even being
considered for the post of Police Constable.
Despite this, the Respondent represented
himself as being entitled to the said post.
This would be an act in the realm of
suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.”
18. In the present case, there is no doubt that the
petitioner was a juvenile and terms as per Sections 19 and 21 of
the Act, he was not supposed to disclose the offence committed
by him as a juvenile and which has been dealt with under the
provisions of J.J. Act, 2000 which records that a juvenile will
not suffer any disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction
of an offence under such law and no report in any news paper,
magazine, news-sheet or visual media of any inquiry regarding a
juvenile in conflict with law with regard to him shall be
Patna High Court CWJC No.20180 of 2013 dt.11-05-2026
22/22
published and the records of the case pertaining to the criminal
involvement of a juvenile are to be obliterated after the specified
period, but in the present case, the petitioner has been dismissed
on the ground of concealment of the fact, which is paramount in
a discipline force. The petitioner being in the disciplined force,
it was incumbent upon him to disclose about pendency of the
case, whether it was prior to his attaining the age of majority.
19. From consideration made above, this Court is of
the opinion that no interference is required by this Court on the
rd
order of dismissal passed by the Commandant 43 Battalian,
Jeolikota dated 28.08.2012 by which the services of the
petitioner has been terminated.
20. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
21. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 20.04.2026
Uploading Date 11.05.2026
Transmission Date NA