Important point
Courts should not interfere with administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of Court.

Headnote:Service Law—Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949—Section 11(1) r/w Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955—Dismissal of appellant who had been appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force and had completed 27 years of service—Charge found proved in departmental inquiry was that he submitted a false certificate of his date of birth at time of recruitment—Order was upheld by Departmental Appellate Authority—High Court dismissed the writ—Appeal—Scope of judicial review against administrative decision—Unless it was illogical, or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to conscience of Court, Court should not interfere—Case of appellant did not deserve deniency.
Held : The Courts should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in (CA) Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA) commonly known as Wednesbury’s case the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision- making process and not the decision. (See: V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC and Others (2005(7) SCC 338). (Para 8)
This is a case which does not deserve any leniency otherwise it would be giving premium to a person who admittedly committed forgery. In the instruction (G.O. No.29/93), it has been provided that whenever it is found that a government servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment should not be retained in service. After inquiry as provided in Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 if the charges are proved, the government servant should be removed or dismissed from service and under no circumstances any other penalty should be imposed. (Para 11)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’).

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

The appellant applied for appointment as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (in short ‘CRPF’) and appeared for recruitment test on 1.5.1969. In support of his claim of age he produced a certificate where his date of birth was stated to be 1.1.1959. But in reality as was revealed later, his date of birth was 1.7.1951. Therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed as he was less than 18 years of age. He undisputedly rendered about 27 years of service. But on the basis of certain allegations he faced departmental inquiry. Article of charge reads as follows:

“ARTICLE-1

That the said HC No.690342131 HC Ram Saran of C/45 Bn CRPF has committed an offence on his part that he furnished a false information about his date of birth by making alteration in his school certificate to secure appointment as constable for which he was not eligible in terms of recruitment rules which is punishable under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 11(2) of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965.”

3. The Deputy Commandant 45/BN. CRPF was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the Departmental Enquiry. After enquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report. The Commandant (S.G.), the Disciplinary Authority after considering the report was of the view that the charge official deserves stringent punishment. But keeping in view his long service of 28 years with good grading for the past 10 years, he was inclined to take a lenient view and in purported exercise of power under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short the ‘Act’) and Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short the ‘Rules’) imposed penalty of reduction to the rank of NK (GD) for a period of one year from 10.9.1997 to 9.9.1998 without cumulative effect. The matter was placed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Nagpur who by order dated 16.1.1998 different from the proposed punishment and directed dismissal from service. Accordingly, notice was issued to the appellant. After considering the reply the punishment awarded was dismissal from service. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority which was dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed, which as noted above was dismissed.

4. The High Court noted that under Rule 29(d) of the Rules the concerned authority had power to enhance the punishment. Since the appellant had entered into service on the basis of false date of birth, the writ petition was not entertained and it was observed that the appellant on removal from service was not entitled to gratuity and other such benefits.

5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant poor youngster belonging to remote rural place had with a view to obtain an employment submitted a certificate. The age of appellant then was only two months short of the requisite age. After serving for nearly 28 years when he was about to take voluntarily retirement from service, the proceedings were initiated. The order of removal of service is very bad and if the same is maintained he would not be entitled to any gratuity or pension.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in a disciplined force there was no scope for taking lenient view for a person who obtained employment on the basis of forged document. It was pointed out that on the basis of binding instructions contained in Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, OM No. 11012/7/91 Estt. (A) dated 19.5.93 (G.O.No. 29/93) dismissal from service was the only punishment imposable. In fact, the DIG, CRPF had referred to said instruc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 91

Important pointCourts should not interfere with administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of Court.

Cases Referred (2)

Important point
Courts should not interfere with administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of Court.