The Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, on November 3, set aside the termination of a Food Inspector who had been removed from service on the basis of two criminal cases registered when he was a minor. The Division Bench observed that past incidents from childhood, which ended in compromise long ago, cannot be used to judge a person’s character in adulthood, particularly when he has an otherwise exemplary service record.
Background
The appellant, Prahlad Prasad Rathour, had been appointed as a Food Inspector in 2018 against a post reserved for ex-servicemen. Before joining State service, he had served in the Indian Navy for nearly 15 years, earning “Exemplary” and “Very Good” conduct certificates and multiple Good Conduct badges.
However, during police verification, authorities flagged two criminal cases from 2002-registered when Rathour was still a teenager. The cases were resolved in 2007 through compromise in a Lok Adalat, with no continuing legal liability. Despite this, in March 2024, the State terminated him, citing non-disclosure of the cases in his verification form. A Single Judge upheld this decision earlier in January 2025, leading to the present appeal.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha noted that the cases were too old and occurred during the appellant’s childhood. Importantly, Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 explicitly provides that a child in conflict with law must not suffer disqualification in adult life due to past proceedings.
The bench observed, “The appellant was a minor at the time of the incidents. The law intends that such circumstances do not cast a permanent shadow upon his future.”
The Court also referred to Supreme Court rulings in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that trivial or long-settled cases cannot be treated as suppression of criminal history. The appellant’s naval record weighed heavily in his favor. The bench remarked, “A service record described as exemplary for fifteen years cannot be overlooked.”
Additionally, the Court found that the termination order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing, violating basic fairness. A remark from the bench summed up the sentiment: “Fairness in procedure is not a formality; it is a constitutional necessity.”
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Court quashed both the termination order dated 15 March 2024 and the Single Judge’s order dated 7 January 2025. The judgment directed that all consequential service benefits must follow. The matter concluded with the reinstatement order and no further directions.
Case Title: Prahlad Prasad Rathour v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2025)
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Case Type: Writ Appeal (WA No. 785 of 2025)
Appellant: Prahlad Prasad Rathour (Ex-Serviceman, Food Inspector)
Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & Food and Civil Supplies Department