Submission of a fake certificate to secure employment constitutes misconduct under the CRPF Act, 1949, and the punishment of removal from service was upheld as not shockingly disproportionate to the offence.

S.C. Das, J.

Seeking appointing to the post of Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘CRPF’), the petitioner applied as a scheduled caste (for short ‘SC’) category candidate and got selection in due process and was accordingly appointed to the post of Constable of CRPF in the year 2005 and was discharging his duties with all sincerity, efficiency and devotion.

2. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him alleging that the SC Certificate produced by him at the time of his appointment was fake. Initially show cause notice was issued enclosing report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh Sub-Division (for short ‘SDM, Bishalgarh’) dated 23.09.2008 and the report of Additional District Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala dated 20.10.2008. The petitioner submitted show cause reply and thereafter a full-fledged departmental enquiry was taken up on the ground that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct by submitting a fake/forged SC Certificate, which was not issued by the competent authority, i.e., SDM, Bishalgarh.

3. In the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner admitted the charge that the SC Certificate produced by him at the time of securing the job was fake and further contended that he actually belonged to a SC community (Dhoba community) and that the SC certificate produced by him at the time of his securing the job was obtained through an agent, namely, Sri Anup Roy and that he believed that SC Certificate to be genuine and only after inquiry he came to know that the SC Certificate produced by him was fake. He has contended that during the course of disciplinary proceeding he approached SDM, Bishalgarh for issuing a SC Certificate and on the basis of his prayer, SDM, Bishalgarh issued a fresh SC Certificate No.3300 dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition) certifying that he belonged to SC community and he submitted the same in the disciplinary proceeding. In spite of submission of genuine SC Certificate, the enquiry officer submitted report against him holding that the charge framed against him is proved and based on that report the disciplinary authority, i.e. respondent No.4 inflicted on him the punishment of removal from service by order dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition). The petitioner challenged the order of punishment preferring an appeal before respondent No.3 and a copy of the Memorandum of appeal is annexed as Annexure P/2 to the writ petition. In the Memo of appeal the petitioner contended that he actually belonged to SC community and that during pendency of the proceeding itself he obtained a genuine SC Certificate and that he has been wrongly dismissed by the disciplinary authority. But the appellate authority by impugned order dated 25.05.2010 dismissed his appeal and consequently upheld the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority.

4. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for setting aside/quashing order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority and also the appellate order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the respondent No.3-appellate authority and prayed for reinstating him in service with all service benefits. He has also contended that he has not been paid the arrears of salary for the period he rendered service with the benefits of 6th Central Pay Commission and he prayed for directing the respondents accordingly to make payment of the said arrears.

5. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 contended that the petitioner secured his job by submitting a fake/forged SC Certificate. Whether he actually belonged to SC community or not was altogether a different issue, but it is an admitted position that he submitted a fake SC Certificate and thereby secured the job practicing fraud on the department and, hence, the CRPF being a disciplined Force thought it appropriate to remove him from service and there is no illegality and impropriety in the action taken by the respondents.

6. Respondent Nos.5 and 8 by filing counter affidav