The court emphasized that the challenge to the dismissal order was not barred by time, and the dismissal order was set aside as it was not practicable to call the officials of the State Education Board for evidence. The Tribunal did not direct reinstatement or payment of back wages to the respondent, but allowed the petitioners to proceed against the respondent as per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1980.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 28300/2023 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7276/2023

1. The challenge in this writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Police and its functionaries is to the order dated September 23, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.2212/2018, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein by stating in paragraph 8 as under:

"8. It is relevant to mention that all possible evidences will be placed by the prosecution and then a view was to be formed and the respondents themselves were contesting parties', which miserably failed to prove the case against the applicant in the Criminal Case (FIR No. 495/96) dated 26.05.2022. Merely a visit of an officer by submitting a report without having the original documents is not tenable in the eyes of law and secondary evidence only can be led, when the original is not traceable or missing. In the present case, the respondents have not made any effort whatsoever to trace the original document(s) from the concerned unit. In view of this, the present Original Application stands allowed. In view of this, we hereby direct the respondents to have liberty if department chose to take any action against the applicant, they may proceed further in accordance with law as per Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1980, within a reasonable period. This OA stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs."

2. Some of the facts noted from the record are that, on September 20, 2016, a complaint was received in Second Battalion, DAP from one Sanjeet Kumar alleging that Vinod Kumar, S/o Hanuvant Singh, got himself enrolled in Delhi Police as a Constable on January 13, 1988 by submitting a forged matriculation certificate, which is an offence under the Indian Penal Code (`IPC', for short). On receipt of the same, SI Kishore Pandey was deputed to get the matriculation certificate of Constable Vinod Kumar verified from Board of School Education, Bhiwani, Haryana. Based on the matriculation Certificate bearing Roll No.792460, SI. No. C-33664, vide which the respondent had passed his matriculation examination held at Govt. High School, Bhatgaon, Sonipat in March, 1978 and got himself enlisted in Delhi Police as Constable, was also sent to the Education Board, Bhiwani for verification.

3. On November 14, 1996, Secretary, Board of School Education, Bhiwani, Haryana, intimated that Roll No.792460 was not allotted to any student in District Sonipat, Haryana during the matriculation examination held in March, 1978 and the matriculation certificate of Vinod Kumar, bearing Roll No.792460 is bogus and stern action may be taken against him under intimation to Education Board, Bhiwani, Haryana.

4. On receipt of above report, an FIR No. 495 under Section 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi against respondent for seeking job in Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means by producing forged document.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that, since the respondent was involved in a grave misconduct, holding a regular Departmental Inquiry against him was not reasonably practicable as the main and material witnesses in the case belongs/resides at Bhiwani, Haryana and it would be quite difficult to procure their presence for expeditious Departmental Inquiry proceedings.

6. Moreover the witnesses will adduce nothing new except to prove the verification report dated November 14, 1996. The matriculation certificate of the respondent had already been verified by deputing a responsible officer and the same was found to be forged. The documentary evidence on record fully proved that the respondent got himself enrolled in Delhi Police as Constable (Driver) fraudulently which indicated criminal tendency in him. He committed a very serious misconduct/