The Delhi HC said that although the man was a minor at the time of committing the act, but he had become a major and was employed with the BSF when he made the false statements. (File photo)The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a former constable with the Border Security Force (BSF) over non-disclosure and wrongful disclosure about an FIR registered against him as a minor.
The man had argued before a division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee that he was “falsely implicated” in a case and an FIR was registered against him when he was a minor.
While applying for the post of constable with the BSF, he did not disclose about the FIR. After he completed his basic training, the BSF found out about the FIR during the verification and issued a show-cause notice to him on February 4, 2012. Finding his reply “unsatisfactory”, the BSF dismissed him from his service without pension benefits on February 18, 2012.
When his appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on March 7, 2016, he moved the HC, seeking to set aside his dismissal and reinstatement into the service with effect from his date of dismissal with all consequential benefits.
He also argued that he was a juvenile at the time of the incident, and thus, the entire proceedings involving arrest and trial must be initiated and decided by the Juvenile Justice Board under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2003.
“Thus, the proceedings against the petitioner before any Court of law, as in the present case, barring the said Board are vitiated in law. Further, relying upon Section 19 and Section 21 of the Act, learned counsel also contended that there was no need for the petitioner to disclose information regarding his childhood as there is a specific bar thereunder,” the man claimed as recorded in the judgment.
However, the HC in its judgment delivered on November 2 observed that in reply to the show-cause notice issued by the BSF, the man submitted that he was “unaware of any such FIR or incident and had never been arrested and nor was granted bail”. However, the counsel representing the man before the HC did not dispute the FIR and “contended otherwise in view of the Act”, the bench further observed.
The HC, thereafter, opined that this showed that the man had been giving false information since the very beginning — initially when he was filling up the form at the time of applying for the concerned post in the BSF, when he was yet to commence his training and before joining the BSF, and thereafter when he replied to the show-cause notice.
“The petitioner has been guilty of giving false information, contrary to the factual position and what was within his knowledge. This Court finds it extremely hard to believe that the petitioner was unaware of the FIR or the proceedings emanating therefrom, including the arrest and/or bail as the petitioner would certainly have been a party to all those at every stage. This also does not behove good of any prudent Armed Forces personnel like the petitioner while replying to the Show Cause Notice when he was already a part of the coveted Force-BSF,” the HC held.
The HC further opined that nobody at the time of joining or after joining the Armed Forces can be allowed to make such mistakes as they are not only detrimental but also contrary to the expected norms. The phraseology used by the man in reply to the show-cause notice is “scathing and loaded with falsities”, the HC observed. “In view of the above, the petitioner is guilty of committing a blunder, not once, but twice. Such act(s) are not pardonable in the Armed Forces,” the HC held.
With respect to the protection under the Juvenile Act, the HC held that although the man was protected under the Act for the “non-disclosure made by him”, he cannot claim any protection for supplying false information twice. Without going into the merits of the FIR, the HC observed that the man was “duty-bound to truthfully apprise the respondents about the actual true status thereof”. Having not done so, he was “grossly guilty of both withholding and for divulging the wrong fact about the FIR on more than one occasion”, the HC opined.
The HC said although the man was a minor at the time of committing the act, he had become a major and was employed with the BSF when he made false statements “twice over again”. Dismissing the appeal, the HC held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act would not apply to the facts of the case herein as the situation is totally different therefrom.