01Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Constable (General Duty) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 17.10.2011
p. 2At the time of joining, he submitted an attestation form and undertaking stating he had no criminal antecedents
pp. 2-3During verification, it was discovered that Sahar P.S. Case No. 99 of 2004 and Case No. 129 of 2005 were pending against him
p. 3The 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
pp. 5-6On 28.08.2012, the Commandant (Respondent No. 3) terminated his services under Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009 for suppression of material facts
p. 4The statutory appeal and review filed by the petitioner were subsequently rejected
p. 4, 602Issues
i.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.
¶ 8, 12, 18ii.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.
¶ 8, 18iii.3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the Patna High Court given that the termination order was passed in Uttar Pradesh.
¶ 13-1503Law Applied
Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009, which allows for termination for furnishing false information
¶ 3, 11Sections 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
¶ 8, 18Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 417 regarding the effects of suppression of criminal history
¶ 16State 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
¶ 17Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 9 provisions
Section 34Section 147Section 148Section 323Section 325Section 326Section 452Section 504Section 50604Reasoning
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
¶ 18The 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
¶ 16, 18Applying 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
¶ 16The 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"
¶ 17-1805Holding
The court held that the termination was justified due to the concealment of facts, which is a serious matter in a disciplined force regardless of the eventual acquittal or juvenile status
¶ 18-19The court declined to interfere with the order of dismissal dated 28.08.2012 passed by the Commandant, 43rd Battalion and dismissed the writ petition
¶ 19-20Original Court PDF
Gobind Kumar SinghvsThe Union Of India and Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
