ANIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per petitioner, he was falsely implicated in an FIR when he was a minor. Thereafter, without disclosing about FIR, he was appointed as a Constable in the Border Security Force [Hereinafter referred as "BSF "] and completed his basic training. However, upon coming to know of the FIR during the course of his verification, BSF issued a Show Cause Notice dtd. 4/2/2012 to the petitioner. Not finding a satisfactory answer dtd. 8/2/2012 from him, he was dismissed from service without any pensionary benefits vide order dtd. 18/2/2012. He also pleaded, the appeal thereagainst was dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dtd. 7/3/2016 and the revision thereagainst is pending before the appropriate authority.

(2.) Hence the present writ petition seeking reliefs as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that as the petitioner was admittedly below 18 years of age at the time of incident, he was a 'juvenile ' and the entire proceedings involving arrest and trial qua a juvenile like petitioner must be initiated and decided by the Juvenile Justice Board [Hereinafter referred as "Board "] under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [Hereinafter referred as "Act "]. Thus, the proceedings against petitioner before any Court of law, as in the present case, barring the said Board are vitiated in law. Further, relying upon Sec. 19 and Sec. 21 of the Act, learned counsel also contended that there was no need for petitioner to disclose information regarding his childhood as there is a specific bar thereunder.