Termination of service for non-disclosure of offences committed as a child is contrary to law.

Chhattisgarh High Court Reverses Termination of Ex-Serviceman, Citing Juvenile Justice and Natural Justice Violations. Court rules termination of Prahlad Prasad Rathour from government service as arbitrary; emphasizes protections under Juvenile Justice Act and principles of natural justice.

In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned the termination of Prahlad Prasad Rathour, an ex-serviceman, from his position as a Food Inspector, ruling that the termination was arbitrary and in violation of both the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and principles of natural justice. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, delivered the verdict on November 3, 2025, setting aside the earlier decision of the Single Judge who had dismissed Rathour's writ petition.

Rathour's termination from service was initially based on the non-disclosure of minor offences committed when he was a child, which were later settled through a compromise in the Lok Adalat in 2007. The High Court observed that the offences occurred when Rathour was a minor, and thus, under Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, he should not suffer any disqualification related to those offences. The court emphasized that Rathour's service record in the Indian Navy was exemplary and that the offences in question were trivial and concluded long before his appointment to the government position in 2018.

The court further noted that Rathour was not given an opportunity to be heard before the termination order was issued, violating principles of natural justice. The judgment highlighted that such procedural fairness is essential under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where non-disclosure of trivial or long-settled cases was not deemed sufficient for termination.

The bench criticized the reliance on outdated and irrelevant criminal proceedings to assess Rathour's character as "unfit," calling it arbitrary. They reaffirmed that individuals who were children in conflict with law at the time of the offence are entitled to start afresh without the stigma of past offences, as intended by the Juvenile Justice Act.

The ruling mandates that Rathour be reinstated, quashing the orders of termination from March 15, 2024, and the dismissal by the Single Judge on January 7, 2025. The judgment is seen as a reaffirmation of the rights of individuals who have faced criminal charges as minors and highlights the importance of procedural fairness in employment matters.

Bottom Line:

A child in conflict with law shall not suffer disqualification attached to a conviction of an offence under such law - Termination of service based on non-disclosure of minor offences committed as a child in conflict with law is arbitrary and contrary to law.

Statutory provision(s): Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section 24(1), Indian Penal Code Sections 323, 294, 34, Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Prahlad Prasad Rathour v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2804546