The legal principle established is that the service conditions of personnel in the Central Reserve Police Force are governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Rules, and the applicability of pension rules should be considered in light of the specific provisions of the Act and Rules.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is by the Union of India and its functionaries to the judgment dated 27. 09. 2004 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh holding that the services of the respondent-herein are governed by the central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short "the Act")and Rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not govern the service conditions is without jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE factual position in a nutshell is as follows:-The respondent herein was enrolled as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 28. 02. 1968. At the time of enrolment, he had submitted a certificate regarding his qualification. After completion of 29 years and 7 months of service, in order to verify the service rendered by him to determine the qualifying service with regard to pension, it has been observed by the Pay and Accounts Office that his date of birth has been amended in the School Leaving certificate without any authority. Therefore, the Pay and accounts Office directed OC Gurgaon to verify the authenticity of the School Leaving Certificate and intimate the actual date of birth in respect of the respondent hererin from the School Authorities. The School Authorities, vide their letter No. E-2/638 dated 26. 08. 1996 and letter dated 05. 03. 1997, confirmed that the School Leaving Certificate is fictitious and bogus and not issued by them. On the basis of the report received from the School Authorities, a departmental enquiry was ordered against the respondent herein. Consequently, on 05. 05. 1997, Shri Puran Singh asst. Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry Officer submitted his report and found that the articles of charges framed against the delinquent were substantiated vide prosecution as well as defence evidence cited as proof and it was established that the School leaving Certificate submitted by him at the time of enrolment was fake which was also confirmed by the concerned school. A copy of the Enquiry Report was provided to the respondent herein asking for his representation if any, within a period of 15 days, but he did not submit anything new for consideration. After the charges leveled against the respondent herein having been proved beyond doubt, he was found guilty under Section 11 (1) of the Act read with Rule 27 of the crpf Rules, 1955, on 20. 09. 1997 and was removed from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, on 01. 02. 2000, the respondent herein filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul, inter alia, praying that the order of dismissal was bad and without jurisdiction and that he may be granted pensionary and retrial benefits. The learned Civil Judge, on 22. 10. 2002, decreed the suit of the respondent herein holding that the dismissal order was passed as per law but he was entitled to pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants herein filed Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2002 in the District Court, Narnaul praying for setting aside the same. The learned District Court, vide order dated 28. 02. 2004, dismissed the appeal of the appellants-herein by holding that the decision of the trial court was correct and based on proper appreciation of evidence and proper application of law and came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, rule 24 of the said Rules would not be applicable to the respondent herein who is governed by the provisions of the crpf Act, 1949. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein moved R. S. A. No. 3891 of 2004 before the High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. A learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 27. 09. 2004, dismissed the appeal of the appellants herein holding that there was no infirmity in the order of the courts below and held that the services of th