JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The petitioner, an Ex-Constable, General Duty (GD) in the respondents No.1,3&5 Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), has filed this petition impugning the order dated 28th October, 2019 of the respondents SSB of dismissal of the departmental appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order dated 13th August, 2019 of termination of services of the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009 (SSB Rules).

2. The reasons for termination of the services of the petitioner are best recorded in the show cause notice dated 24th April, 2019 [Annexure P-8 to the petition] issued to the petitioner, inter alia recording that, (i) the petitioner was appointed as a Constable (GD) in the respondents SSB on 15th February, 2013 inter alia on the conditions that the verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner would be carried out from the concerned District Administration immediately after joining the service and that if any declaration given or information furnished by the petitioner for recruitment was found to be false or to have been wilfully suppressed, the services of the petitioner shall be liable to be terminated; (ii) a Memorandum dated 27th June, 2018 was received from the respondents No. 2 and 4 Staff Selection Commission (SSC), to initiate administrative action against the petitioner in compliance of the orders of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.48354/2017 titled Ajit Singh & 54 Others Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (iii) it had been informed that the petitioner had less marks in his category and vacancy type and was thus not entitled to be appointed and his candidature should be cancelled; (iv) a Court of Inquiry was ordered and a detailed inquiry to investigate the matter to find out the facts was conducted; (v) the Court of Inquiry submitted a report on 23rd August, 2018, which was put up before the Disciplinary Authority on 28th August, 2018; (vi) the summary trial was held and concluded; (vii) the petitioner, in his application form (pursuant to notification dated 5th February, 2011 of the examination of the year 2011 and pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed) had claimed to be an Other Backward Class from the hill district of U.P. and submitted an OBC Certificate and was found to have obtained higher marks than the other OBC candidates and was selected; (viii) the petitioner had not been declared qualified in the first result declared on 28th November, 2011 but was declared qualified in the revised result declared on 6th July, 2012 in OBC category of Border Area of Uttar Pradesh (UP) State as filled by him in his application form; (ix) later on, it was noticed that the petitioner does not belong to the border district of State of UP and accordingly action against him was initiated; (x) the domicile district of the petitioner as per the Domicile Certificate produced by the petitioner was not covered under the Border District of UP; (xi) the petitioner was thus to be not treated as qualified under the general vacancy of UP due to less marks; (xii) as per the Domicile Certificate produced by the petitioner also, the petitioner did not belong to the border district; (xiii) the petitioner had furnished false information at the time of his appointment/enrolment in service; and, (xiv) furnishing of false information was actionable under Section 25 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (SSB Act) read with Rule 23 of SSB Rules.

3. The petitioner, as Annexure P-9 to the petition, has filed the reply dated 6th May, 2019 submitted by him to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 24th April, 2019.

4. We have perused the English translation of the said reply and do not find the petitioner to ha