COMMR. OF POLICE AND ORSversusSANDEEP KUMAR

                          [2011] 3 S.C.R. 964


A                  COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS
                                    v.
                        SANDEEP KUMAR
                (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1430 OF 2007)
                           MARCH 17, 2011
B
     [MAR~NDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]


         Service law: Appointment - Respondent applied for the
   post of Head Constable - Application form contained a
C question if he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under
   detention, fined or convicted by court of law for any offence -
   Respondent answered the question in negative - He qualified
   in all the tests - While filling the attestation form, he disclosed
   for the first time that he had been involved in a criminal case
o with his tenant which later on was compromised and he was
   acquitted - His candidature was cancelled on the ground that
   he made a false statement since he was involved in a
   criminal case - Aggrieved, the respondent filed petition before
   CAT - CAT dismissed the petition - High Court holding that
E .cancellation of candidature of respondent was illegal -
   Justification of - Held: Justified - Respondent was 20 years
   of age when the incident had happen.ed - At that age, young
  people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can
   often been condoned - They are not expected to behave in
F a mature manner as older people - The modern approach
  sl10u/d be to reform a person instead of branding him as a
  c1iminal all his life - In the application form, the respondent
  may not have mentioned that he was involved in a criminal
  case out of fear of automatic disqualification - Even otherwise,
  it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape,
G and, therefore, in such matters, a more lenient view should
  be taken.

        Morris v. Crown Office (1970) 2 Q.B. 114 - referred to.

H                                 964
COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS v. SANDEEP KUMAR 965

                      Case Law Reference:                          A
    (1970) 2 Q.B. 114            referred to          Para 14 ·
    CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1430 of 2007.     ·
                                                                   8
    From the Judgment & Order dated 31.7.2006 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 12565 of 2004.

   T.S. Doabia, Rekha Pandey, Mukesh Verma and D.S.
Mahra for the Appellants.
                                                                   c
    Deepak Kumar and Sudarsh Menon for the Respondent.

    The following Order of the Court was delivered
                          ORDER
                                                                   D
    Heard learned counsel for the parties.
     This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
of the High Court of Delhi dated 31.07.2006. ·
    The facts have been given in the impugned judgment and         E
hence we are not repeating the same here, except wherever
necessary.

     The respondent herein-Sandeep Kumar applied for the
post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999. In the application   F
form it was printed :
    "12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted kept
    under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court
    of law for any offence debarred/disqualified by any Public G
    Service Commission from appearing atits examination/
    selection or debarred from any Examination, rusticated by
    any university or any other education authority/Institution."
    Against that column the respondent wrote : 'No'.
                                                                   H
    966      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A      It is alleged that this is a false statement made by the
  respondent because he and some of his family members were
  involved in a criminal case being FIR 362 under Section 325/
  34 IPC. This case was admittedly compromised on
  18.01.1998 and the respondent and his family members were
B acquitted on 18.01.1998.

         In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999
  for filing up of certain posts of Head Constables (Ministerial),
  the respondent applied on 24.02.1999 but did not mention in
  his application form that he was involved in the aforesaid
C criminal case.

       The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection to the
  post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On
  03.04.2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first time
D he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with
  his tenant which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and
  he had been acquitted.

       On 02.08.2001 a show cause notice was issued to him
E asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature for
  the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed
  the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and
  had made a wrong statement in his application form. The
  respondent submitted his reply on 17.08.2001 and an additional
  reply but the authorities were not satisfied with the same and
F on 29.05.2003 cancelled .his candidature.

      The respondent filed a petition before the Central
  Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.02.2004.
  Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition which has
G been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal.
       The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that ·
  the respondent should have disclosed the fact of his involvement
  in the criminal case even if he had later been acquitted. Hence,
H it was submitted that his candidature was rightly cancelled.
 COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS v. SANDEEP KUMAR 967


      We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the        A
 cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give
 our own opinion in the matter.

        When the incident happened the respondent must have
- been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often
                                                                      B
   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   C
  1
   of their lives.

       In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean
 Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for
 committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his
 hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole      D
 life.

      The modern approach should be to reform a person
 instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
      We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students            E
 mentioned by Lord Denning in his book 'Due Process of Law'.
 It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic
 about the Welsh language and they were upset because the
 radio programmes were being broadcast in the English
 language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and                F
 invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of
 court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High
 Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals.
 Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed :-
                                                                      G
      "I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says
      that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were
      excessive, at the time they were given and in the
      circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate
      interference with the course of justice in a case which was     H
    968       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A         no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show
          - and to show to all students everywhere - that this kind
          of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if
          they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them ..
          make their protests as they will. But they must do it by
B         lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at t.he course
          of justice in this land - and I speak both for England and
          Wales - they strike at the roots of society itself, and they
          bring down that which protects them. It is only by the
          maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to
c         be students and to study and live in peace. So let them
          support the law and not strike it down.
                 But now what is to be done? The law has been
          vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on
          Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order ·
D         must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this
          appeal, things are changed. These students here no
          longer defy the law. They have appealed to this court and
          shown respect for it. They have already served a week in
          prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it
E         any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals.
          There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the
          contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They
          wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language.
          Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards
F         - of the poets and the singers - more melodious by far
          than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should
          be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong -
          very wrong - in going to the extreme they did. But, that
          having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy
G         on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies,
          to their parents and continue the good course which they
          have so wrongly disturbed."
          [ Vide : Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114]
H
 COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS v. SANDEEP KUMAR 969

     In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as             A
displayed by Lord Denning.
     As already observed above, youth often commit
indiscretions, which are often condoned.
      It is true that in the application form the respondent did not.. B
·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,    c
dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken
in the matter.
      For the reasons above given, this Appeal has no force and
it is dismissed. No costs.
                                                                      D
D.G.                                          Appeal dismissed.