Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru set aside the termination of a retired Indian Navy officer appointed as Food Inspector under the Ex-Servicemen quota, holding that his removal for allegedly concealing criminal cases from his childhood was arbitrary and unsustainable. The Court referred to Section 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, defining a “child in conflict with law” as one below eighteen years of age alleged or found to have committed an offence, and to Section 24(1), which eliminates any disqualifications arising from such proceedings. In view of these provisions, the Bench ruled that past juvenile cases could not justify termination and directed that the orders of dismissal be quashed.

The matter concerns an appeal filed by an appellant who had been appointed as a Food Inspector under a category reserved for ex-servicemen. He joined service after receiving the appointment order. A police verification report was later issued stating that his character was found “unfit and non-suitable” for government service, based on two criminal cases registered in 2002. Both cases had concluded in 2007 through acquittal and compromise before the Lok Adalat.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Magistrate Empowered to Order FIR Under S.156(3) CrPC When Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence; Restores Investigation in Forged E-Stamp Case

The appellant challenged his termination dated 15.03.2024, arguing that no opportunity of hearing was given, the cases pertained to his minority age, and he had served in the Indian Navy for about 15 years with an “Exemplary” and “Very Good” service record. It was contended that the offences were minor in nature and arose out of a neighbourhood dispute involving several family members. He asserted that he was a child in conflict with law at the time of the incidents and was therefore entitled to protection under Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which removes disqualifications attached to criminal proceedings involving minors.

The State submitted that the appellant had suppressed material facts in the verification form by not disclosing the FIRs. It was argued that charges were framed, and the appointments were subject to character verification. The State contended that the appellant was not acquitted honourably and that non-disclosure justified termination.

The statutory provisions noted in the appeal include Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961; Chhattisgarh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966; and Sections 2(12), 2(13), and 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The appeal challenged the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, asserting arbitrariness and violation of natural justice.

The Court recorded that “the criminal cases referred to in the impugned order pertain to incidents of the year 2002, when the appellant was a minor” and that both matters “culminated in acquittal or compromise before the Lok Adalat as early as in 2007.” It observed that “on the date of submission of the verification form and appointment, there existed no subsisting criminal proceedings or disqualification against the appellant.”

The Court stated that relying on such old and settled matters to declare the appellant’s character unfit was “wholly arbitrary.” It further recorded that the appellant had an “unblemished record of fifteen years in the Indian Navy, where his conduct was rated as ‘Exemplary’ and ‘Very Good.’”

The Bench observed that the appellant was a child at the time of the alleged offence and extracted Section 2(12) of the Act defining “child.” The Court also reproduced Section 24 of the Act and stated its effect, stating that it “provides that a CCL shall not suffer disqualification attaching to conviction of an offence under such Act.”

It further stated that Section 24 was incorporated “to give a CCL an opportunity to lead his life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his past.” The Court recorded that all criminal charges against individuals recognised as children in conflict with law “be decided by the authorities constituted under the Act by the JJ Board.”

The Court also noted the definition under Section 2(13), observing that a child in conflict with law means one “who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of such offence.”

In assessing the dismissal order, the Court stated that “the order of termination dated 15.03.2024, as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge… are unsustainable in law.” It observed that terminating the appellant without giving an opportunity of hearing was violative of the principles of natural justice and failed the fairness test under Article 14.

Also Read: ‘Conversion By Inducement' A Social Menace: Chhattisgarh High Court Disposes Of PILs Challenging Hoardings Restricting Entry Of Pastors, Directs Petitioners To Seek Remedy Under PESA Rules

The Court directed that “the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the order of termination dated 15.03.2024, are hereby quashed and set aside.”

“Benefit of Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to be given to a CCL (child in conflict with law), which removes all disqualifications attached to a conviction or criminal proceeding against him.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G.

Case Title: Prahlad Prasad Rathour v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:53518-DB
Case Number: WA No. 785 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru