Juveniles seeking appointment in disciplined forces must disclose pending criminal cases despite statutory protections against disqualification.

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable (General Duty) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 17.10.2011

At the time of joining, he submitted an attestation form and undertaking stating he had no criminal antecedents

During verification, it was discovered that Sahar P.S. Case No. 99 of 2004 and Case No. 129 of 2005 were pending against him

The petitioner contended that he was a minor at the time of the alleged offenses and was subsequently declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and acquitted in 2013

On 28.08.2012, the Commandant (Respondent No. 3) terminated his services under Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009 for suppression of material facts

The statutory appeal and review filed by the petitioner were subsequently rejected

1. Whether the suppression of pendency of criminal cases at the time of recruitment warrants termination, notwithstanding the petitioner’s status as a juvenile at the time of the offense.

2. Whether the protection under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 exempts a candidate from disclosing criminal involvement in an attestation form for a disciplined force.

3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the Patna High Court given that the termination order was passed in Uttar Pradesh.

Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009, which allows for termination for furnishing false information

Sections 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which provide that a juvenile shall not suffer disqualification attaching to a conviction

Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 417 regarding the effects of suppression of criminal history

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajay Kumar Malik (2024), which established that deliberate suppression of material facts (suppressio veri) disentitles a candidate from employment in a disciplined force

The court reasoned that while the Juvenile Justice Act aims to protect minors from the stigma of conviction, it does not grant a license to suppress material facts during recruitment into a disciplined force

The court noted that at the time of the petitioner’s verification and joining in 2011, the criminal cases were active and had not yet resulted in acquittal

Applying the ratio in Avtar Singh, the court distinguished cases where acquittal occurs prior to verification from the present case, where the suppression was live at the time of appointment

The court emphasized that for a disciplined force like the SSB, honesty and disclosure are paramount; the petitioner’s failure to mention the cases—even those involving his juvenile status—constituted a breach of the undertaking and "suppressio veri"

The court declined to interfere with the order of dismissal dated 28.08.2012 passed by the Commandant, 43rd Battalion and dismissed the writ petition