A cop had suppressed a criminal case against him at the time of his selection, which could have landed him in jail for seven years, but the Supreme Court rejected a petition of Delhi police commissioner for his removal applying the principle of British jurisprudence to ignore certain “indiscretions” of young people.
The top court was of the view that any minor offence by young people at a tender age should not become a source for “pinning” them down for whole life provided the act done militated against the common conscience of the society.
In this regard, a bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra applied the British jurisprudence laid down by famous judge Lord Denning to give some long rope to the young people, if their act was not so serious.
“In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. Youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned,” the bench said while dismissing the Delhi police commissioner’s petition for dismissal of head constable Sandeep Kumar, selected in 1999.
At the time of his selection, Sandeep Kumar had furnished the “mandatory undertaking” as is necessary for every government employee whether he or she faced any criminal case, was arrested, proceeded in the court of law, convicted, debarred from any examination, or disqualified by any university or educational institution — with negative answers.
Thus, he had suppressed the fact that a case under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC for “voluntarily causing grievous hurt to others” with a common intention with some other persons, was registered against him but later compromised.
The police establishment took the matter very seriously and passed an order for his removal from the service in 2003, saying the offence under Section 325 was serious enough as it attracted a maximum sentence of 7 years’ jail term.
Mr Kumar went to the administrative tribunal against the sack order but lost the case and then approached the Delhi HC, which allowed his plea, saying that when the case had been compromised, it should not be treated as pending.
The apex court though upheld the high court verdict but adding legal force to it by applying the British jurisprudence.
“It is true that in the application form the respondent (Kumar) did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so, he would be disqualified,” the apex court bench said.