Navin Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following relief:

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, Navin Kumar, was appointed as a Member of the Child Welfare Committee, Buxar for a period of three years in the year 2020, and thereafter was deputed for training at Chanakya National Law University, Patna. During the tenure of the Committee, upon detection of corporal punishment inflicted upon a child at the Juvenile Care Home, Buxar, an enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate, Buxar which led to the removal of the then Additional Director, Child Protection Unit, the Child Protection Officer and the Counsellor. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply. Meanwhile, pursuant to a notification inviting applications for constitution of The Juvenile Justice Board, the petitioner applied for the vacancy at Buxar. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the District Magistrate, Buxar, the Selection Committee constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act, in its 14th meeting, decided to debar the petitioner from future engagement in any child welfare scheme, and thereafter the petitioner's candidature for the Juvenile Justice Board was consequently rejected on the ground of “debarred by selection committee”.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the enquiry or of the decision taken against him till the issuance of the notice dated 05.12.2023 rejecting his candidature for the Juvenile Justice Board, and that despite repeated RTI applications, the petitioner was furnished a copy of the proceedings of the 14th meeting of the Selection Committee dated 07.11.2023, along with the District Magistrate's letter no. 1590 dated 18.10.2023, only on 01.01.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though a show-cause notice, was issued to the petitioner, and though the petitioner submitted his detailed reply thereto, no show-cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner on the basis of the subsequent enquiry report submitted by the District Magistrate, Buxar, before the Director, Social Welfare Department passed the final order of debarment and that neither the said enquiry report nor the final order of debarment was ever communicated to the petitioner; further the debarment, having been passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording him any opportunity to meet the findings of the enquiry report, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that he restricts his prayer to the debarment of the petitioner for future engagement in any child welfare scheme which amounts to the debarment for unlimited or indefinite period which is illegal and impermissible under the law.

Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submitted that the Selection Committee has been constituted under the Juvenile Justice Rules, chaired by Hon'ble (Retd.) Justice Mridula Mishra, former Judge of this Hon'ble Court, along with five other members, for selection and performance appraisal of Social Members of the Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees and that the complaints against the Members of the Child Welfare Committee are enquired into by the concerned District Magistrate, on whose recommendation suitable and legal action is taken by the Selection Committee; and that the petitioner's own selection was earlier made on the recommendation of the same Selection Committee.

Learned counsel for the State further submitted that two consecutive enquiries were conducted at the district level, and the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Buxar was made after affording the petitioner full opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice; that the decision of the Selection Committee, to debar the petitioner under Section 27(1)(7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal; and, reliance was placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Kumari Sunita Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 16693 of 2017), read with the analogous case of Amresh Kumar Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (C.W.J.C. No. 14826 of 2018), it was further submitted that the Members of the Child Welfare Committee are meant to look after the welfare of children and not their own welfare, and that the present writ petition has been filed only with a vested interest and is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 submitted that the Selection Committee has been constituted by the State Government under Section 87 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2017, with a retired Judge of this Hon'ble Court as its Chairperson and that the matter was reported by the Additional Director, Child Protection Unit, Buxar to the Director, Social Welfare Department, and by the District Magistrate, Buxar, pursuant to which the Director, directed an enquiry under Section 27(10) of the Juvenile Justice Act after which a three-member enquiry committee was constituted by the District Magistrate, Buxar and that the enquiry committee's report was prepared after hearing all the then Members of the Child Welfare Committee, including the petitioner, who appeared and represented themselves.

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 further submitted that the petitioner's show-cause reply was found unsatisfactory and that the debarment of the petitioner by which the petitioner, along with the then Chairperson and two other Members of the Child Welfare Committee, Buxar, were debarred from future engagement in child-related work was neither arbitrary nor in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner; and that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed.

Having heard the parties and perused the record. It is important to discuss the law of debarment for an unlimited period. Under settled Indian Jurisprudence, the Apex Court has firmly established that an executive or statutory authority cannot ban a person or entity indefinitely as it constitutes a form of ‘civil death’ and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M/s. Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL and Ors., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, held that while authorities have the right to debar or blacklist an entity, such debarment must be for a specific, definite period. Further, in M/s Mars Developers and suppliers v The State of Odisha [SLP(C) No. 7861/2023], the Apex court reiterated this position and held that, “while debarment has been recognized as a method of disciplining deviant suppliers, an order of debarment can never be for an indefinite period.”

In the light of the above discussion, it is evident that debarment cannot be for an indefinite period, as it violates the doctrine of proportionality. Hence, the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 is set aside to the extent it debars the petitioners from future engagement in any child welfare scheme.

In view of the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent not to debar the petitioner from participating in future engagements relating to child-related schemes.

Pending I.A’s if any stands disposed of.