ACQUITTAL OF JUVENILE ON MERITS PRECLUDES DENIAL OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.

The applicant, Ashwani Malik, was born on January 1, 2001, and provisionally selected for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police after successfully qualifying all recruitment tests

He was subsequently issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated April 15, 2024, due to his involvement in FIR No. 7/2018, registered on January 8, 2018, under Sections 323/308 IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Shamli, U.P.

At the time of the alleged incident and FIR, the applicant was 17 years old, making him a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act

The applicant was acquitted in the criminal case on October 11, 2022, and the Trial Court initiated proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. against the complainant for giving false evidence

Despite the acquittal and his juvenility at the time of the incident, the Screening Committee rejected his candidature on October 8, 2024, solely based on his involvement in the FIR, deeming the acquittal not "honorable" because prosecution witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the case

The respondents argued that the acquittal was not "honourable" due to compromise and hostile witnesses, permitting the Screening Committee to assess suitability based on antecedents, especially given the sensitive nature of police service

Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2024 and Order dated 08.10.2024, cancelling the applicant's candidature, should be quashed

Whether the respondents should be directed to issue a letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Constable (Ex.) with consequential benefits

Whether a candidate who was a juvenile at the time of an alleged occurrence and subsequently acquitted on merits, with no adverse material regarding character and antecedents, can be denied appointment merely due to past involvement in an FIR

The court primarily applied Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 of the Delhi Police, which outlines procedures for assessing suitability of candidates involved in criminal cases, even after acquittal

This Standing Order allows the Screening Committee to consider antecedents and suitability, distinguishing between "honourable" and other forms of acquittal (e.g., compromise or benefit of doubt) and categorizing offenses

It also referenced principles from the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates differential treatment for juveniles, prohibiting permanent stigma from criminal involvement, especially after acquittal

Furthermore, the court relied on the precedent from Akhilesh Kumar vs. UOI & ors. (W.P. (C) No. 6136/2017) and Rahul Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018), which emphasized the protective umbrella of juvenile laws, precluding adverse consequences or disclosure obligations for incidents committed as a juvenile and allowing juvenility pleas at any stage

The Court found that the Screening Committee failed to adequately consider the applicant's status as a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident, a crucial aspect mandated by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which aims to prevent permanent stigmatization of persons below 18 years

The committee's mechanical approach of deeming the acquittal as "non-honourable" due to hostile witnesses was found to be disproportionate, particularly given the trial court's initiation of Section 344 Cr.P.C. proceedings against the complainant for false evidence, effectively validating the applicant's claims of false implication and extinguishing criminal culpability

The court noted that while Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 empowers the Screening Committee to assess suitability post-acquittal, this discretion must be exercised reasonably and contextually, considering age, the nature of acquittal, and lack of other adverse material

The decision to deny appointment was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with principles of fairness and equal opportunity, penalizing a juvenile for judicially cleared alleged past conduct

The impugned order dated October 8, 2024, cancelling the applicant's candidature, and the show cause notice dated April 15, 2024, were quashed and set aside

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant's case for appointment as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police and, if otherwise eligible, to issue an offer of appointment within eight weeks from the date of the order

The applicant is entitled to notional seniority and other consequential benefits from the date his immediate junior was appointed, with actual monetary benefits accruing from his date of joining