'Child In Conflict With Law Should Not Live With Stigma': Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Termination Over Concealment Of Childhood Criminal Cases

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru referred to Section 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which defines “child in conflict with law” as a child who has not completed eighteen years of age and is alleged or found to have committed an offence; and Section 24(1) which removes all disqualifications attached to conviction or criminal proceedings against a CCL. In light of these provisions, the Division Bench held,

“Section 24 of the Act of 2015 has been incorporated in order to give a CCL an opportunity to lead his life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his past. It thus provides that a CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to conviction of an offence under such Act. A “CCL” on the date when the alleged offence has been committed is required to be dealt with under the Act, 2015 which declares that all criminal charges against individuals who are described as “CCL” be decided by the authorities constituted under the Act by the JJ Board. If a conviction is recorded by the JJ Board. Section 24(1) of the Act of 2015 specifically stipulates that CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under such law. Further Section 24(2) of the Act of 2015 contemplates that the Board must pass an order directing all the relevant records of such conviction to be removed after expiry of the period of appeal or reasons as prescribed under the rules as the case may be.”

In light of the above explanation, the Court held,

“… considering that the appellant was a CCL at the time of the alleged offences, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 24(1) of the Act 2015, which removes all disqualifications attached to a conviction or criminal proceeding against a CCL. appellant's unblemished record of fifteen years in the Indian Navy, where his conduct was rated as “Exemplary” and “Very Good,” further reinforces his integrity and suitability for public service. The action of the respondents in terminating him without affording any opportunity of hearing is violative of the principles of natural justice and fails the test of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Facts:

Initially, in 2002, owing to a trivial neighbourhood dispute, two criminal cases were registered against the officer (then a minor), for offences under Section 323 [Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt] and 294 [Obscene acts and songs] r/w 34 [Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention] of IPC, which were later compromised before the Lok Adalat in 2007, leading to acquittal of the officer and his family members.

After serving in the Navy, the officer was appointed to the post of Food Inspector in 2018, however, was removed from service in 2024 on the basis of a 2022 police verification report which found him to be unfit and non-suitable for government service. While he challenged the termination in a writ petition, a Single Judge upheld the termination on the grounds that the officer had purposefully concealed his involvement in criminal cases, which restrained the appointing authority from applying his mind based on the rules and circulars on whether the offence registered attracts moral turpitude and from making a decision on his suitability for appointment.

Aggrieved, the officer challenged the order of the Single Judge.

In his challenge, he submitted that his termination, which was issued six years after his appointment, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as also the principles of natural justice, as prior to the issuance of the termination, no opportunity of hearing was rendered to him. He submitted that he joined the State services after an honorary discharge from the Indian Navy, where his character was assessed as “exemplary” and was awarded “Good Conduct Badge” for multiple years. He further argued that the police verification report on the basis was which his termination was effectuated, was based on two criminal cases registered when he was a minor and he is thus entitled to protection under the scheme of Section 24(1).

Court's Findings:

The Court observed that the termination order, as well as the order of the Single Judge were unsustainable as the criminal cases, which formed the root of the termination, pertained to incidents of 2002— when the officer was a minor, and that both cases culminated in acquittal or compromise before the Lok Adalat in 2007, much prior to his joining the State services in 2018. Thus, on the date of submission of the verification form and appointment, there existed no subsisting criminal proceedings or disqualification against the appellant.

The Court referred to the cases of Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] and Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 5 SCC 264], where the Supreme Court had held that non-disclosure of trivial or long-concluded cases, especially those ending in acquittal, cannot be treated as suppression of material facts warranting termination.

Finding merit in the appeal, the Court allowed the same, while subsequently setting aside the order of termination as well as the order of the Single Judge.

Case Details:

Case Number: WA No. 785 of 2025

Case Title: Prahlad Prasad Rathour v State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order