The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of misconduct must be based on relevant material and in compliance with applicable rules and judicial precedents. Non-compliance with judicial precedents may lead to serious consequences.

Gita Mittal, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 19th July, 1999 of removal of the Petitioner from service on the sole ground that the Petitioner had completed his matriculation and had been issued a certificate from Central Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi. The Respondents have taken a plea that this Board had not been recognized by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. The Petitioner has assailed his removal on the ground that the recruitment rules which were applicable at the time of the Petitioner's recruitment on 1st April, 1990 did not contain any such stipulation and consequently the Petitioner's removal was bad in law. It is noteworthy that the Petitioner's appeal against order of removal was rejected by the competent authority by an order dated 27th October, 1999 on the same ground. The Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27th October, 1999 passed by the appellate authority rejecting his appeal.

2. This very issue has been the subject matter of several writ petitions filed in this Court. In a judgment dated 27th August, 2002 passed in Tarachand v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 5552/2000, this Court had held as follows:

10. A perusal of the said Rule would, Therefore, show that at the relevant point of time, no educational qualification was necessary for obtaining an employment in the post of a Constable.

11. It stands accepted that the Petitioner filed the said certificate in the year 1986. It also is not in dispute that the recruitment process began in the year 1986.

xxx xxx xxx

12. Once the certificate is held to be genuine, the question of producing a false certificate would not arise. The question which ought to have been raised in the afore-mentioned situation was as to whether the Petitioner obtained employment in violation of the essential conditions of service rules. The services rules were amended in the year 1987 whereas the recruitment process had started in the year 1986. Only because the Petitioner had filed the certificate to show his educational qualification, it cannot be said that he committed a misconduct of filing a false certificate to secure employment. The question of filing a false certificate to secure employment would arise provided holding of the said qualification was an essential term in terms of the statutory rules or otherwise.

xxx xxx xxx

15. In Probodh Kumar Bhowmick v. University of Calcutta and Ors. 1994 (2) C LJ 456, it was observed:

14. Misconduct, inter alia, envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It means, "improper behavior; intentional wrong doing on deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behavior:

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it is a violation of definite law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness. Misconduct even if it is an offence under the Indian Penal Code is equally a misconduct.

15. Even in Industrial laws, acts of misconduct specified in standing order framed under Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 is not treated to be exhaustive. Various misconducts specified in Clause 14(3) of Model Standing Order are merely illustrative.

16. In (5) Mahendra Singh Dhantwal v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. MANU/SC/0301/1976 : (1976) II LLJ 259 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed "standing orders of a company only describe certain cases of misconduct and the same cannot be exhaustive of all the species of misconduct which a workmen may commit. Even though a given conduct may not come within the specific terms of misconduct described in the standing order, it may still be a misconduct in the sp