Former jawan found guilty of withholding facts about FIR against him

Petitioner says he was ‘implicated’ in the case when he was a minor; HC dismisses plea saying his acts ‘don’t behove a soldier’

November 04, 2022 03:57 am | Updated 03:57 am IST - New Delhi

The Delhi High Court decided not to interfere with the decision of the BSF to dismiss the jawan.

The Delhi High Court decided not to interfere with the decision of the BSF to dismiss the jawan. | Photo Credit: File photo

The Delhi High Court has found a former BSF constable “grossly guilty” of withholding facts and providing wrong information about an FIR registered against him when he was a minor while applying for the post.

Deciding not to interfere with the decision of the BSF to dismiss the jawan — Anil Kumar — from the service, the High Court said his acts “do not behove a soldier”.

The court’s November 2 judgment came on Mr. Kumar’s appeal against his dismissal from service without any pensionary benefits in 2012.

While applying for the post of constable in the BSF, Mr. Kumar, in response to a specific query in the form — “Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, bound over, interned, externed or otherwise dealt with under any law in force in India or outside? If so state particulars?” — wrote “no”.

Upon coming to know of the FIR during the course of his verification, the BSF issued a show-cause notice. Once again, Mr. Kumar replied that he has never been arrested. However, the BSF found his statement to be untrue.

In his petition, Mr. Kumar argued that he was falsely implicated in the FIR when he was a minor. He relied on Sections 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act to argue that there was no need for him to disclose information regarding any offence committed as a minor.

‘Gave wrong information twice’

The BSF, represented by advocate Vikrant N. Goyal, contended that Mr. Kumar not only gave false information about the FIR but also gave an unsatisfactory response to the show-cause notice.

Mr. Goyal said that the BSF found Mr. Kumar “unlikely to become an efficient member of the force” and dismissed him from service without pensionary benefits.

The High Court said Mr. Kumar “cannot claim any protection for supplying false information twice”, as he, on the second occasion, had admittedly attained majority and was gainfully under the services of the BSF.

“Such a statement and the act(s) twice do not behove a soldier, especially the one who is on the verge of joining the BSF,” the court said while dismissing Mr. Kumar’s plea.

Top News Today


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.