B.S.Pandey vs Union of India and others

T.S. Doabia, J.—An order dated 2.9.1996 whereby the petitioner has been removed from service is being called in question. The

allegations against the petitioner were that while functioning as Member of the Force he had committed an offence of misconduct in his capacity as

member of the Force inasmuch as he had produced a fake education certificate. This charge was elaborated. It was alleged that during the course

of verification of qualifying service in respect of the petitioner it was found that the Date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate of the

petitioner stood erased and overwritten. Therefore, this aspect of the matter was got verified from the concerned school. The petitioner was called

upon to furnish the school leaving Certificate. This certificate which was issued by the Principal, Higher Secondary School, Devkali, was said to

have been issued on 28.8.1995. This School leaving Certificate was got verified from the concerned School. The school authorities intimated that

the petitioner had never studied in the School. It was this aspect of the matter which form subject matter of inquiry. One Puran Singh, Assistant

Commandant, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. In this Inquiry the petitioner had taken a stand that he did not produce the certificate. In this

enquiry the petitioner had not led evidence with a view to prove his innocence.

The Inquiry Officer is said to have submitted his report and found the petitioner guilty. The inquiry Officer in his report submitted on 14.6.1996

makes mention of the fact that the matter was got investigated from the Criminal Investigation Department and the petitioner was given opportunity

to put across his point of view. 15 days time was given to him. He was unable to bring any witness in defence. In para 6 of the report of Inquiry

Officer all that has been stated is that the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges as proved. What was the material which was against him

and whether any witnesses in support of the prosecution were produced or not is not apparent from the proceedings which were recorded on

24.5.1996. It also indicates that four questions were put to the petitioner. He was asked as to whether he wants to lead any evidence in defence.

His reply was in the negative. It was on this basis that order of removal was passed. In this regard it will be apt to notice that what the authorities

removing the petitioner have stated in Paras 4 and 7, which are relevant. These are reproduced below :

The delinquent No. 700071004 Ct. Bijai Shanker Pandey was also given copies of DE proceedings but he did not produce any witness nor

did he produce any firm supportive evidence in support of his claim of innocence for not producing Fake education certificate except that of plea

that at the time of his enlistment i.e. on 15.12.1970, he had deposited his all certificates to the Recruiting Board of CRPF and then his certificates

were found in order. But after a lapse of 25 years the Principal of Higher Secondary Devkali, Balia (UP) had refused to admit the fact that he was

a bona fide student of the said School and stated that the certificate produced by the individual was not issued by the School.

xxx xxx xxx

However, the delinquent again appeared in person before DA on 18.7.96 and requested for 15 days C/L for producing his defence

documents. Accordingly 15 days C/L was sanctioned to delinquent. On expiry of 15 days C/L, he had produced an affidavit dated 27.7.96 issued

by the Court Special Judge, Balia (UP) in which his Date of Birth has been mentioned as 1.1.1952. But is illetrate and his date of birth is required

to be determined in accordance with the provision contained in CSR79. Since this documents has got no validity with regard to the charge of his

producing Fake education certificate, the said affidavit is hereby not accepted and plea is turned down.

Facts be again recapitulated. The petitioner had rendered 25 qualifying service. His papers were accordingly sent to the Accounts officer. At

that point of time the petitioner was called upon to submit a copy of school Leaving Certificate. The petitioner made available a certificate said to

have been issued by the Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Devakali, Balia (U.P.). The letter was addressed to the said Principal. The

Principal sent a communication on 22.4.1996 in which he had taken a stand that the school record does not contain any record visavis the

petitioner having entered the school. It was this fact which led to the holding of a departmental inquiry.

The issue in this case was as to what is the correct date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner joined the service more than 26 years back.

Action was taken against him. As per the petitioner his date of birth was 1.1.1952. This was the basis on which he was given appointment. The

copy of the certificate which was given is said to be Annexure3. This certificate appears to have been issued on 20.8.82. This certificate makes

mention of the fact that the petitioner has passed in Class 8th. All that the Principal in his communication dated 22.4.1996 had stated is that on the

basis of the record it is not possible to verify that any person was registered at Sr. No. 2304. It be seen that Sr. No. 2304 is not the registration

number but is the number of the certificate. All that the been verified is that the petitioner's name is not found entered in the School Register. These

School Registers on the basis of which the Certificate is stated to have been issued were never produced. Under similar circumstances in the case

of Dheeraj Singh v. The Union of India & Ors., (SWP 2/1996) this Court vide judgment dated 21.12.1999 has expressed an opinion that the

question as to Date of Birth should be examined at the time of enrolment and if a person continues to work for 20 years then the issue raised loses

significant. What was said by Court is reproduced below :

.. .. .. .. ..

Since the petitioner has already rendered active service from the date of his enrolment till the date of removal from service which comes to nearly

29 years, he will be deemed in service from the date of dismissal till the date of this judgment for the purpose of pension. In other words, he will

stand compulsorily retired with effect from the date of this judgment subject to the condition that he will be entitled to all the retiral benefits,

including the pay and allowances payable in case of premature retirement. Retiral benefits shall include G.P. Fund, Leave encasement, gratuity

etc.etc. In case this judgment is not implemented within a period of four months, the petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement with all the

consequential benefits of pay and allowances along with costs of Rs. 5000/.

I am of the opinion that what has been said in SWP No. 2/1996 would be attracted to the facts of this case. There is another aspect of the

matter. The petitioner was proceeded against under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949. For facility of reference this section is reproduced

below :

Minor Punishments. (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this

Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he

considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a

member of the Force, that is to say

(a) reeducation in rank,

(b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay and allowances,

(c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month,

(d) confinement in the quarterguard for not more than twentyeight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, and

(e) removal from any office of distinction or special emoluments in the Force.

This section thus contemplates imposing of punishment upto reduction of rank. It does not deal with punishment of removal. Therefore, the

petitioner is right in his submission that if action is also taken in terms of Section 11(1) then punishment of removal cannot be imposed. For this

reason and for reasons given in SWP No. 2/1996 (supra) this writ petition is allowed. The order of removal of the petitioner is set aside. The

petitioner shall stand reinstated.

Disposed of accordingly.