The judgment establishes that appointments made on the basis of forgery or deceit are not valid in law, and disciplinary actions based on such findings are justified.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for quashing of the Office Order dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-7) issued by Commandant-106 Battalion, whereby and whereunder, he has been removed from the service from the date of issuance of impugned order.

Further, prayer has been made for quashing of Office Order No.R13-1/2018-19/Stha.3 dated 20.02.2019 as well as Office Order No.R-13-2/2019-Ras-Administration-1 dated 09.01.2020, whereby and where under the order of dismissal has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority respectively.

Petitioner has also prayed that after quashment of the aforesaid orders, a direction be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable on 24.07.2004 in Group Centre, Muffarpur (Bihar). After basic training, he was posted in CRPF-44 Battalion, Lauk Tauk (Manipur). The Petitioner was transferred in the Year 2020 to CRPF-26 Battalion, Chas (Bokaro). In the service career, he was transferred to several places and lastly he was transferred to CRPF-106 Battalion (RAF), Sunder Nagar, Jamshedpur on 12.07.2016. It is specific case of the petitioner that one FIR being Andal P.S.Case No. 195 of 2016 dated 16.07.2016 was lodged by one Jai Prakash Singh against five persons including Upendra Kumar Singh i.e. the petitioner under sections 363,365,366,368 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that his daughter namely Manisha Kumari Singh has been kidnapped on 04.06.2016 by the accused persons. After investigation, the police has submitted the final form against the petitioner as ‘final report as mistake of fact’ vide Final Report No. 31/2016 dated 31.08.2016. In the meanwhile, said Jai Prakash Singh submitted a complaint before the Commandant 106, Battalion, RAF, Sunder Nagar, Jamshedpur alleging therein the actual name of the petitioner is Arun Kumar Singh who has served the respondent-CRPF by using the certificate of his elder brother Upendra Kumar. Pursuant to same, the respondents issued a show cause to the petitioner vide Letter dated 31.12.2016, which was duly replied by the petitioner. However, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in terms of Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 25.09.2018 before the Inquiry Officer and has denied the charges leveled against him. In the Departmental inquiry, the petitioner and several witnesses have been examined and Inquiry Officer submitted his final report and held that charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved.

3. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Commandant, 106 Batallion RAF/CRPF, Jamshedpur sought a report from the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara regarding genuineness of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, an enquiry was conducted by the Police Inspector, Sadar, Circle, Ara and held that petitioner is innocent and genuine person and there is no any complaint registered in the police record and same was also forwarded to the Commandant, 106 Battalion, RAF/CRPF, Jamshedpur. However, the Commandant, 106 Bn. RAF/CRPF, Jamshedpur vide impugned order dated 19.11.2018 contained in Office Order No. P.Aath-01/2018-106 removed the petitioner from service without considering the report of Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara on the ground that name of the petitioner’s father as recorded in the service book of the petitioner is different from inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara as in the inquiry report, the name of the Petitioner’s father is mentioned as ‘Ram Daroga Singh’ where as in the service book, it is mentioned as ‘Daroga Singh’. Thereafter, the petitioner’s wife filed an RTI be