Sacked for criminal case at 10, PAC jawan re-instated by high court

Allahabad: The Allahabad high court has quashed the termination order of a PAC constable, whose services were terminated on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him in the year 1994, although he was only 10 years old at that time.
Hearing the writ petition filed by constable Rajiv Kumar, Justice Ajay Bhanot said that the petitioner was only 10 years of age at the time of registration of FIR and submission of chargesheet. He was prosecuted along with co-accused and was subsequently acquitted in 2002.

As the petitioner was a minor, and was only 10 years of age when the FIR was lodged against him and his family members, the court, while dealing with rights and innocence of a minor, said, “The consideration of a past prosecution of a child in a criminal case will prevent reintegration in the mainstream society. It will pose an impediment in the reformation of child and growth into a responsible adult. It will disable the all-around development of a child into a law abiding citizen. It will preclude realization of the mandate of Article 39 of the Constitution of India.”

The court in its 90-page judgment further observed that there is another aspect of the matter. “The gravity of the offence has to be seen in the context of social realities. The practice of framing young members of a family in disputes in villages is not uncommon. This is not only an abuse of the process of court but also has far-reaching consequences on our social structure. False criminal cases are used to ruin the future of off-springs of rival family to exact revenge.”

For reasons not in the record, the petitioner was not prosecuted under the Juvenile Justice Act 1986 and the protection of the Act was denied to the petitioner. The court further held that after acquittal of petitioner in the criminal case, the consequences would be that criminal case never happened and thus the declaration made by the petitioner while joining the service in 2006 was not a false declaration.

The plea of the employer that the petitioner was required to make declaration disclosing details of criminal prosecution faced as a minor child, was in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty) and Juvenile Justice Act, the court said.

In its March 11 judgment, the court held that the termination of the petitioner is wholly illegal and he was prevented from discharge of his duties as a constable by the respondents on account of their arbitrary action and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to full wages.