Delhi High Court
Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Ranjan vs Union Of India And Ors. on 27 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 06.11.2024
Pronounced on: 27.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 5015/2018
SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV @ RANJAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.D. Chotmurada, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC
with Mr. Chandan Prajapati,
Adv.
SI Shrabanta Sarkar, SSB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGMENT
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, assailing the Order dated 27.09.2017 passed
by the respondent no.2, which upheld the Order dated 15.12.2014
passed by the respondent no.4, whereby the services of the petitioner
were terminated on the ground of the petitioner furnishing false
information against question nos. 12 (a), (b) and (c) of the Attestation
Form (Verification Roll) at the time of his enrolment into service.
2. We may note herein the brief facts of the case.
3. The petitioner successfully qualified the open competitive
examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 1 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
was offered the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Sashastra
Seema Bal (SSB) vide Memorandum No. 2/31/12/SSB(SSC)/Rectt.
CT(GD)/ Pers-II/5700-5702 dated 04.03.2013. He was directed to
report to the Commandant, Recruit Training Centre (RTC), SSB,
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh on or before 02.04.2013.
4. While joining the service, the petitioner accepted the terms and
conditions specified in paragraph 2(xi) of the offer of appointment,
which was issued to him through the aforesaid Memorandum.
According to the terms and conditions outlined in the offer of
appointment, the petitioner’s services were liable to be terminated
inter alia in case of him furnishing false or incorrect information at
the time of appointment, if any of the facts or statements mentioned
by him in the Verification Form are found to be false or incorrect, or if
any adverse finding is reported against him.
5. On 15.03.2013, the petitioner joined the RTC, SSB, Gorakhpur,
U.P., after filling up the Attestation Form/Verification Roll as
required under Rule 4 (B) of the SSB Rules, 2009. In the said form, he
stated in response to question no. 12 (a), (b) and (c) that he had never
been arrested, prosecuted, or kept under detention, or imprisoned.
6. Subsequently, on 01.04.2013, he submitted an undertaking
stating that if any adverse report arises during the verification of his
character and antecedents through police authorities or local
administration, his services may be terminated without assigning any
reason.
7. Thereafter, vide the letter dated 12.07.2013, the respondents
sent the abovementioned Verification Roll to the District Magistrate,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 2 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
Deoria, U.P.
8. In response, the District Magistrate, in a letter dated
20.03.2014, informed that an F.I.R No. 449A/2006, dated 25.10.2006
was pending against the petitioner under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at the Lar Police
Station, Deoria, and the case was currently sub-judice before the
learned Upper Civil Judge (Junior Division), District and Sessions
Court, Deoria.
9. Upon receiving the verification report, the Commandant, 58th
Bn./respondent no.4 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2014 to
the petitioner, directing him to explain why he should not be
terminated from service under Section 25 of the SSB Act, 2007 read
with Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009 for providing false or incorrect
information at the time of appointment.
10. In his reply dated 29.04.2014 to the Show Cause Notice, the
petitioner stated that the aforesaid case had been lodged against him in
2006, when he was an adolescent, and he had no knowledge of the
said case.
11. Thereafter, vide a letter dated 10.07.2014, the respondent no.4
requested the Superintendent of Police, Deoria/respondent no.5 to
confirm whether the petitioner was aware of the registration of an FIR
against him at the Police Station.
12. The respondent no.5, vide the letter dated 26.07.2014, informed
the respondent no.4 that the petitioner was well aware of the pending
criminal case as he had been arrested by the police and sent to jail on
12.11.2006, and that the case is pending before the Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 3 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
13. After considering all the facts, the respondent no.4, being the
disciplinary authority, terminated the petitioner’s service vide the
Impugned Order dated 15.12.2014 in accordance with Rule 23 of the
SSB Rules, 2009.
14. Dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 29 of
the SSB Rules, 2009 before the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ, SSB,
Lakhimpur Kheri/respondent no.3, which was subsequently dismissed
on 20.05.2015.
15. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the
Director General (DG), SSB/respondent no.2 seeking reconsideration
of his reinstatement in service. Vide Impugned Order dated
27.09.2017, the respondent no.2 rejected the second appeal as being
devoid of merit.
16. Aggrieved by this predicament, the petitioner approached this
Court by way of the present petition.
Submissions of the Parties
17. Mr. G.D. Chotmurada, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the respondent no.2 has mechanically passed the
Impugned Order dated 27.09.2017, ignoring the policy guidelines laid
down by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), as well as the fact that
the petitioner was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, a
decision which was affirmed by the Court of the Additional Session
Judge, Deoria, in its Order dated 04.11.2017.
18. He submitted that the policy guidelines laid down by the MHA
were notified on 01.02.2012 to consider the cases of candidates
against whom criminal matters are pending, when such candidates are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 4 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
applying for the various posts in the Central Armed Police Forces
(CAPFs). Further, the learned counsel submitted these guidelines
come to the aid of the petitioner, especially paragraph III, which
provides for an exemption stating that candidates shall not be debarred
if they have not been involved in, convicted for, or concerned with
minor offences outlined in Annexure B, or those specified in Chapters
VIII and X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
19. He submitted that the respondent no.4 terminated the
petitioner’s service vide the order dated 15.12.2014, solely based on
the communication dated 26.07.2014 received from the
Superintendent of Police, Deoria, which wrongly reported that the
petitioner was sent to jail on 12.11.2006. He submitted that the
information obtained by the petitioner through Right to Information,
vide letter No. 23/Jan Soochna dated 03.01.2018, conclusively proves
that the petitioner was neither arrested nor sent to jail. Therefore, the
termination order dated 15.12.2014 is void ab initio and was passed
without justifiable cause.
20. He further submitted that due to an ongoing land dispute
between the petitioner’s family and their extended family, an FIR No.
449/2006 was lodged by the paternal uncle of the petitioner under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 452, 504 and 506 IPC against their
extended family members. In retaliation, one of the individuals named
in the said FIR, filed a counter FIR No. 449A/2006 under Sections
147, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, in which the petitioner along with
other family members, was named as an accused. He further
contended that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the above case
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 5 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
and was falsely implicated by his extended family members out of
pure vengeance.
21. The learned counsel drew our attention to the fact that the
petitioner attended the Court proceedings only on 2-3 occasions, as is
evident from the Court records. Additionally, he was informed by the
earlier counsel, and was under the bona fide belief, that the case
would be dropped against him as he was a juvenile. Therefore, the
petitioner gave a reply in the negative to question nos. 12 (a), (b) and
(c) of the Attestation Form since the petitioner was neither formally
arrested nor sent to jail and genuinely believed that he is innocent.
22. The learned counsel finally contended that the respondent no.4,
before passing the Impugned Order dated 15.12.2014, did not provide
a copy of the letter received by them from the Superintendent of
Police, Deoria nor called for any comments from the petitioner.
23. In support of his plea, he placed reliance on the following
decisions:-
a) Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs. Sandeep
Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644.
b) Avatar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8
SCC 471.
c) Jainendra Singh vs. State of UP through
Principal Secretary, Home & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC
748.
d) Md Parvej Alam vs. Union of India & Ors.,
2024:DHC:1477-DB; and
e) Supdt. of Police, Villupuram District vs. S.
Rajesh Kumar, in W.A. No. 2759/2018, dated
11.01.2019.
24. Per contra, Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 6 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
respondents, controverting the above made submissions, contended
that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner had
deliberately concealed the fact regarding the registration of an FIR
No. 449A/2006 against him. Further, the respondent no.4, had rightly
terminated the services of the petitioner vide the Impugned Order
dated 15.12.2014, after examining all the facts of the case.
25. She further contended that the stand taken by the petitioner that
he was a juvenile at the time of the offence does not absolve him of
the misconduct of furnishing false information, which he had
knowingly withheld, and attracts Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009,
which specifically deals with termination of service on the ground of
furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment.
26. The learned counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority
took an appropriate action by issuing a Show Cause Notice to the
petitioner in accordance with Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009 as well
as in accordance with the policy guidelines issued by the MHA vide
F/No.45020/6/2010-Pers-II dated 01.02.2012, for furnishing false
information and wilfully concealing facts in the Attestation
Form/Verification Roll at the time of his initial appointment.
Moreover, he was provided with a reasonable opportunity to present a
defense against the proposed termination from service within 30 days.
Therefore, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner.
27. She also contended that as per the aforesaid policy guidelines, if
an individual is involved in a criminal case or is arrested under the
provisions of the IPC related to serious offences or moral turpitude,
such as Section 325, the candidate will not be considered for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 7 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
recruitment. In the present case, the petitioner was charged under
Sections 323, 325, 504, and 506 IPC, and as per Sub-Clause 8 of
Annexure A of these policy guidelines, Section 325 IPC is classified
as a serious offence affecting the human body.
28. Concluding her arguments, the learned counsel submitted that
any reconsideration of the petitioner’s case in the CAPF, especially
taking into account his background and stigmatic moral character,
would severely impact the administration and discipline of the Armed
Police Force. She further added that the judgments relied upon by the
petitioner have been decided on their own facts and are, therefore, not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
29. In support of her plea, she placed reliance on the judgments of
the Supreme Court in Avatar Singh vs. Union of India (supra) and of
this Court in Shishir Yadav vs. Union of India& Ors., 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 6962.
Analysis and Findings
30. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and perused the record, we may begin by noting that the
primary submission of the petitioner is that on the day of the
occurrence of the offence, that is, 22.10.2006, the petitioner was a
juvenile, having completed 15 years 02 months and 12 days of age.
Even if he is convicted for the offences with which he has been
charged, he shall not suffer disqualification as per the provisions of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and
also as per the earlier Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (in short, ‘JJ Act, 2000‘).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 8 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
31. Opposing the claim of the petitioner, the respondents contended
that at the time of consideration of the petitioner’s candidature, an
Attestation Form (Verification Roll) duly filled out by the petitioner
was looked into in order to ascertain his conduct and involvement in
any criminal or civil case. In the said form, the petitioner had declared
that he had never been arrested/prosecuted nor remained under
detention. He also furnished an undertaking that if any adverse report
comes to notice of the respondents during the course of verification of
his character and antecedents through local administrators/Police
authorities, his service may be terminated without assigning any
reason. However, during the police verification regarding the
antecedents of the petitioner, it came to light that FIR No. 449A/2006
under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC at the Lar Police Station,
Deoria was pending against the petitioner, and he was arrested by the
Police and sent to jail on 12.11.2006 for having been involved in the
abovementioned FIR.
32. The position of law is well settled that the verification of the
character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to determine
whether the selected candidate is suitable for the post to which they
are selected. Although, such a candidate may be found physically fit,
may have passed the written test and interview, and may also have
been provisionally selected, nonetheless, if the antecedents are
unclean or if they have committed fraud upon their employer in
securing such employment, their candidature may be recalled. Such
verification is desirable and important to appoint a person to a
disciplined Force. Information given to the employer by a candidate as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 9 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service, must be true and there
should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
Any suppression of material information at the time of recruitment by
an individual will have a clear bearing on the character and
antecedents of such a candidate in relation to their
appointment/continuity in the service. It is open to an employer to
adjudge the antecedents of a candidate; however, the ultimate action
should be based upon the objective criteria, and on due consideration
of all relevant aspects.
33. Noting the above principles, we may revert to the facts of the
present case. It is not disputed that a criminal case bearing FIR No.
449A/2006 under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC at the Lar
Police Station, Deoria is pending against the petitioner. However, the
Court of the Principal Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria had
conducted an inquiry into the age of the petitioner and vide the Order
dated 26.11.2016, declared him as a juvenile on the date of the alleged
commission of the offence. Aggrieved by the finding, the complainant
in the said criminal case preferred an appeal before Additional Session
Judge, Deoria, who dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of
the Juvenile Justice Board vide the Order dated 04.11.2017. Therefore,
the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the relevant occurrence.
34. Having said so, in order to appreciate the contention of the
petitioner that it was not obligatory for him to have even revealed any
information about his criminal antecedents in the light of objectives
and scheme of JJ Act, 2000, which was invoked at the relevant time,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 10 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
we may refer to Section 2(k) of the JJ Act, 2000 that defines
‘Juvenile’ as one who has not completed 18 years of age. Section 2(l)
of the JJ Act, 2000 defines ‘Juvenile in conflict with law’ as a juvenile
who is alleged to have committed an offence. Further, Section 19 of
the said Act which deals with the removal of disqualification attaching
to conviction, reads as under:-
“19. Removal of disqualification attaching to
conviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law, a juvenile whohas
committed an offence and has been dealt with
under the provisionsof this Act shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attaching to
aconviction of an offence under such law.
(2) The Board shall make an order directing
that the relevant records of such conviction
shall be removed after the expiry of the period
of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed
under the rules, as the case may be.”
35. Undoubtedly, after a tough selection procedure, the petitioner
had qualified the written test, the physical test and had been successful
for being appointed in the Force, however, he was terminated
(dismissed) from service under Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009 vide
the Order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the respondent no.4 on the
ground that he had furnished false and incorrect information at the
time of his appointment and suppressed the relevant facts.
36. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted
that the petitioner had not furnished any incorrect information about
himself as he had given correct answers to question nos. 12 (a), (b)
and (c) in his Attestation Form (Verification Roll), which required
him to give details regarding whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 11 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
or kept under detention or imprisonment. As the petitioner was not
arrested, detained or imprisoned, therefore, he had answered the said
questions in the negative. Further, being hardly 15/16 years of age, he
could not have comprehended that he was facing a criminal trial and
was being prosecuted, more so since it was a family dispute, therefore,
he had furnished the information in his Attestation Form (Verification
Roll) as not being prosecuted. He submitted that the respondent no.4
had erroneously placed reliance on the report of the respondent no.5,
who had stated that the petitioner was sent to jail in respect of the
aforementioned FIR No.449A/2006 on 12.11.2006, whereas the
petitioner has furnished on record the information received by him
through the Superintendent, District Jail, Deoria, through RTI, who
had reported that petitioner was not confined in jail in the criminal
case related to FIR No.449A/2006.
37. It is relevant to note that the Parliament had enacted the JJ Act,
2000 to protect a juvenile in conflict with law. The basic purpose of
Section 19 of the JJ Act, 2000 is that there shall not be any stigma
against such juvenile, even if convicted of an offence that has been
dealt with under the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000. Such a juvenile
shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction of
an offence. Therefore, if the plea of the respondents is to be accepted,
then the same will amount to ignoring the legislative intent in enacting
a progressive and beneficial piece of legislation, whereby a juvenile is
permitted to join the main stream without stigma. Further, Section 21
of the JJ Act, 2000 prohibits publication of the name of a juvenile in
conflict with law with the object of protecting his/her identity from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 12 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
adverse consequences on account of conviction for an offence
committed as a juvenile, and the records of the case pertaining to the
criminal involvement of a juvenile are to be obliterated after the
specified period.
38. Given the aforesaid, the contention of the respondents that the
petitioner was under an obligation to have disclosed information
relating to the pendency of a criminal case against him would run
contrary to the very spirit of the JJ Act, 2000 as at the time of the
alleged commission of the offence, the petitioner had not even
completed 16 years of age.
39. We may add that even when the police verification in respect of
the petitioner was being conducted to verify his antecedents, the
concerned police station ought to have refrained from revealing the
information pertaining to the petitioner in the criminal case, since he
was a juvenile at that point in time. This was, in fact, a gross breach of
the object of the JJ Act, 2000.
40. We find that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely
covered by Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar
(supra), relied upon by the petitioner. In the said case, while dealing
with an effectively similar issue when the candidature of the petitioner
therein was cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his
involvement in a criminal case under Sections 325 and 34 IPC and
had made a wrong statement in his application form, the Supreme
Court held as under:
“8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High
Court that the cancellation of his candidature
was illegal, but we wish to give our ownSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 13 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
opinion in the matter. When the incident
happened the respondent must have been
about 20 years of age. At that age young
people often commit indiscretions, and such
indiscretions can often been condoned. After
all, youth will be youth. They are not expected
to behave in as mature a manner as older
people. Hence, our approach should be to
condone minor indiscretions made by young
people rather than to brand them as criminals
for the rest of their lives.
xxxx
12. It is true that in the application form the
respondent did not mention that he was
involved in a criminal case under Section
325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this
out of fear that if he did so he would
automatically be disqualified. At any event, it
was not such a serious offence like murder,
dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view
should be taken in the matter.”
41. In Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors., 2017:DHC:
7815-DB, the petitioner therein had applied for the post of Constable
in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), but his candidature was
cancelled as during the selection process, he had not declared the
criminal case against him in the attestation form, however, subsequent
verification revealed an undisclosed criminal case pending against
him. This Court, while noting that the petitioner therein was a juvenile
as on the date of the alleged offence, held as under:-
” 8. Having regard to the legal position, which
shows that the petitioner was undoubtedly, a
juvenile on the date when the alleged offence had
been committed and, therefore, he was required to
be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act”) which declares that all
criminal charges against individuals, who areSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 14 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
described as “juvenile in conflict with law” must be
initiated and decided by the authorities constituted
under the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board. Even if
a conviction is recorded by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Section 19(1) of the Act, stipulates that the
juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification
attached to the conviction of an offence under such
law. Further, as noted hereinabove, Section 19(2) of
the Act contemplates that the Board must pass an
order directing that all the relevant records relating
to such a conviction, be removed after the expiry of
the period of appeal or within a reasonable period
as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.
xxxx
10. Given the aforesaid position, the contention of
the respondents is that petitioner was under an
obligation to have disclosed the information relating
to the pendency of the criminal case against him in
respect of an incident that had taken place when he
was all of twelve years, would run contrary to the
very spirit of the Act. Keeping in mind the fact that
the object of the Act is to ensure that no stigma is
attached to a juvenile in conflict with law, in our
view, once the juvenile has been extended a
protective umbrella under the said enactment, there
was no good reason for the respondents to have
insisted that the petitioner ought to have disclosed
the information relating to the allegations against
him pertaining to an offence that was committed
during his childhood where he was tried by the
Juvenile Justice Board, and subsequently acquitted.
We may add here that even when police verification
in respect of the petitioner was being conducted on
the directions of the respondents, the concerned
police officials ought to have refrained from
revealing the information pertaining to the
petitioner in the case in question, since he was a
juvenile at that point in time. This was in fact a
gross breach of confidentiality contemplated under
the Act.
42. In Md Parvej Alam (supra), the petitioner therein had been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 15 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
working in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for almost about
17 years, when a departmental inquiry was initiated against him
regarding the non-disclosure of a criminal case pending against him at
the time of his joining. This Court, while noting that the petitioner
therein was a juvenile (17 years 2 months 8 days) at the time of
registration of the FIR, in light of the objectives of the JJ Act, 2000
and by relying upon Akhilesh Kumar vs. Union of India Ors., (2018)
SCC OnLine Del 7341, which in turn relied upon Mukesh Yadav
(supra), held that the petitioner therein was under no legal obligation
to have revealed the fact about his previous involvement in a criminal
case for an offence which he allegedly committed when he was a
minor.
43. Having regard to the legal position, the factum of prosecution of
the petitioner in the case of FIR No.449A/2006 under Sections 323,
325, 504, 506 IPC at the Lar Police Station, Deoria could not have
been taken into consideration by the respondents on the petitioner’s
omission to mention the same in the attestation form on account of
him being a ‘Juvenile in Conflict with Law’ on the date of the alleged
commission of offence.
44. The judgments relied upon by the respondents are
distinguishable on facts, therefore, reliance placed on them is
misplaced. In Shishir Yadav (supra), the petitioner therein was not a
juvenile at the time of his involvement in the criminal case.
45. For the aforesaid reasons, the Impugned Orders dated
27.09.2017 and 15.12.2014 are unsustainable and are set aside. The
respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 16 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
period of twelve weeks from today, along with all consequential
benefits, excluding back wages.
46. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
JANUARY 27, 2025/ss/B
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 5015/2018 Page 17 of 17
Signing Date:27.01.2025
17:39:55
[ad_1]
Source link