Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports, so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In the present case, a petition was filed by the petitioner, an Ex. Sep/Water Carrier of the Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) seeking that the orders passed by the Commandant 89th Battalion, CRPF removing him from the service be reinstated as he had made an alleged bona fide mistake of furnishing a duplicate market sheet in which except roll number and the marks obtained, the rest of the particulars were true. The Division Bench of Vimal Kumar Yadav* and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., held that even a minor and trivial looking lapse could endanger the life, limbs and property of CRPF personnel, common men and country too. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the dismissal of the petitioner over furnishing duplicate marksheet.
Background
In 2011, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable/Water Carrier after qualifying Physical Standard Test, Physical Endurance Test and written and medical examination through appointment letter for which the requisite qualification as per the advertisement was that a person should be between 18 to 23 years of age and a matriculate.
The aforesaid appointment was made under the provisions of the Recruitment Rules and under the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rules, 1955. However, when the educational documents of the petitioner were verified by the CRPF, it was reported by the Haryana School Education Board that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was a bogus document. This led to a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, which was initiated through an order. The inquiry culminated in the removal of the petitioner from the service.
The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 which was rejected by the DIG (CRPF). The revision application filed by the petitioner under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 assailing the order of the appellate authority also came to be dismissed paving way for the instant writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The petitioner contended that he had lost his original mark sheet in a selection rally thus, the mark sheet submitted by him to the CRPF Authorities, was the duplicate mark sheet which he had obtained through one of his relatives and believing the same to be his correct mark sheet he furnished and relied upon it. He further argued that the only difference as such was in the roll number and marks obtained by him.
Analysis and Decision
The Court specified that in the case at hand, the status of documents was found in the verification itself, at the initial stage, that it was a bogus document.Any service, especially Defense and Security Services, required a kind of trust between the employer and employee and it was more essential where the security of life, limbs and property of the citizens of the country were concerned.
Further, the Court held that the case of the petitioner did not appear to be a case of bona fide mistake because marks obtained are one of the most important aspects of a mark sheet, and it is almost impossible that one would forget the marks obtained by him. The Court opined that the petitioner knew, in his heart of heart, that the document furnished by him was not a correct document and in case, he had lost it, then he should have brought out the fact before the Authorities instead of submitting something which was not a genuine document. This aspect took away the element of bona fide from his claim.
The Court held that the petitioner’s contention of disproportionate punishment was meritless as the very genesis of relationship between employer and employee itself was under cloud. The Court further opined that a minor and trivial looking lapse could endanger the life, limbs and property of CRPF personnel, common men and country too.
The Court further stated that the scope of intervention in departmental actions by the Courts was limited to the extent of ensuring that the procedure adopted by the Authorities was correct and that the petitioner had been given a fair opportunity of being heard or so to say, that the principles of natural justice were followed in right earnest. Apart from that, the quantum of punishment could also warrant interference of the Court, if it was highly disproportionate or perverse when juxtaposed to the misconduct attributed to the employee. However, in the case at hand Clause 10(2) of G.O.I., Department of Personnel & Training specifically provided for dismissal/removal from service in such cases where induction in the service was based upon a false/bogus document. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Amit Kumar v. UOI, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6510, decided on 15-10-2025]
*Judgement authored by Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mohan Kumar and Neetu Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Avnish Singh, SPC with Mahendra Vikram Singh and Pushplata Singh, Advocates. Atharv, Inspector CRPF and Ramniwas, CRPF