The main legal point established in the judgment is the seriousness of producing a fake OBC certificate in the context of employment, and the court's emphasis on upholding the integrity of the recruitment process and the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner was appointed as a constable (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force against the post reserved for the members of the Other Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as "OBC" in short) subsequently on an enquiry being conducted by the concerned authority the OBC certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment was found to be fake.

2. Production of such fake OBC certificate was considered to be a grave misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and accordingly disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 on August 13, 2011 issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner along with the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the Article of charges framed against him, the documents on which the said Article of charge was framed and the list of witnesses by whom the Article of charges framed against the petitioner proposed to be initiated.

3. The respondent no. 5 in exercise of his power under Rule 27 (b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the " said Rules of 1955" in short) vide office order dated September 15, 2010 appointed Shri. Dhananjay Kumar, Assistant Commandant 3rd Battalion of Central Reserve Police Force, the respondent no. 6 herein as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner.

4. The enquiry officer thereafter conducted the departmental enquiry in accordance with Rule 27(c) of the said Rules of 1955. The petitioner in course of the said enquiry pleaded guilty. The statements of three witnesses were recorded and opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. The petitioner was also given fifteen days time to produce document and witness in support of his defence but the petitioner did not avail the said opportunities. Thereafter the departmental enquiry was closed and report was submitted holding that the charges against the petitioner are wholly proved.

5. The enquiry officer before submitting his final report serve a copy of it to the petitioner inviting him to submit a representation against the said report if any within fifteen days from the date of receipt thereof but the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity.

6. The respondent no. 5 considered the report of the enquiry officer and on assessment of the materials on record imposed the following punishment to the petitioner vide office order bearing no. P.VIII-11/2011-38-EC-II dated February 9, 2012.

"(I) That No. 981230694 CT/GD Kashem Ali Biswas awarded the punishment of "REMOVAL FROM SERVICE" from the date of issue of this order and he will be struck off from the strength of this unit with effect from the same date.

(II) All Medals and decoration if any earned by him during his service in the Force are also ordered to be forfeited under the provision of Section 21(1) of CRPF Act, 1949

(III) The identify card issued to said CT/GD is hereby cancelled.

(IV) All outstanding dues including deduction if any will be recovered from the dues payable to him and deposited into the Govt. treasury."

7. The petitioner assailed the said order of punishment in appeal before the respondent no. 4, the appellate authority under the provisions of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and the rules framed there under. The respondent no. 4 by the order dated May 03, 2012 on consideration of the materials on record, particularly in view of the fact that on reverification of the cast certificate produced by the petitioner, it was found to be a fake one and dismissed the said appeal thereby affirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority. The respondent no. 4 while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority has specifically held that the production of such a fake certificate is fraud on public.

8. The petitioner filed a petition before the respondent no. 3 seeking revision of the revision/recon