Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9443

GAHC010128842017
2026:GAU-AS:4909
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/2752/2017

PRADIP KUMAR RAY
S/O. DHIRENDRA KR RAY, VILL. HURAMARA THAKURPARA, P.O.
BOTGURI, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,
HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-01.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CRPF
NEW DELHI-01.
3:THE DIGP
GROUP CENTRE
CRPF
IMPHAL
MANIPUR.
4:THE COMMANDANT -69 BN
CRPF
MANTRIPUKHURI
IMPHAL
MANIPUR

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A M KHAN, MR.R ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : SR. CGC, ASSTT.S.G.I.,MR.Y DOLOI(R- 1-4)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. A M KHAN, MR. R ALI
For the Respondents: SR. CGC, ASSTT. S.G.I., MR. Y DOLOI

In disciplined forces, appointments obtained through forged documents are grounds for immediate termination without the necessity of a full departmental enquiry, as the core misconduct of forgery supersedes procedural requirements for formal disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Rule 5(1) - Termination of service - Petitioner procured appointment in CRPF by furnishing a forged High School Leaving Certificate to meet age eligibility criteria - Verification revealed date of birth was manipulated - Court held that in cases of recruitment to disciplined forces involving forged documents, there is no requirement to conduct a full-fledged departmental enquiry - Termination order affirmed.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, upon selection for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF, submitted a High School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as 10.10.1988 to satisfy the age limit criteria (18-23 years). Subsequent verification with the Board of Secondary Education confirmed that the birth date in government records was 01.02.1986, rendering the certificate forged and the petitioner over-age. The petitioner's services were terminated under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner had utilized two different certificates to establish age, and his birth registration in 2013 was insufficient to override the original Board records. The court held that the petitioner was ineligible due to age and guilty of producing forged documents to secure entry into a disciplined force.

Issues: (1) Whether the termination of services under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was valid without a full departmental enquiry? (2) Whether the petitioner was eligible for the post considering the discrepancies in his date of birth?

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appointment in a uniformed/disciplined force is secured on the basis of forged educational certificates, the act is considered uncondonable. In such specific facts, the non-holding of a full-fledged departmental enquiry does not vitiate the order of termination, as the foundational fact of forgery is established by the issuing authority.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

Date : 01.04.2026

Heard Mr. A. M. Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Z. Rahman, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Y. Doloi, learned CGC, for the respondents.

2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed an order of termination of services dated 11.06.2016.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner in pursuance to a process of recruitment initiated for appointment into the post of Constable in CRPF (GD) and other post in the Central Armed Police Forces, on his selection, was offered appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF. In terms of the said offer of appointment, the petitioner was to report for undergoing his training. The petitioner accordingly accepted the offer of appointment issued to him, and reported for undergoing the training. After completion of his Basic Training at the ATC, Rangareddy, w.e.f. 08.07.2013 to 07.10.2014, the petitioner was posted as Constable (General Duty) in the 69th Battalion, CRPF, which was at the relevant point of time placed at Mantripukhuri, Imphal, Manipur. The educational certificates as produced by the petitioner, being under a process of verification, services of the petitioner was not confirmed. The verification reports having been received from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, and therein, it being reflected that the date of birth in the HSLC (Repeaters) Examination, 2004, as produced by the petitioner to be not in conformity with the date of birth as recorded in the records of the Board, the Commandant 69th Battalion, CRPF, carried out further enquiry in the matter by deputing an Official of the Force to Office of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. The matter with regard to the manipulation of the date of birth of the petitioner in his HSLC certificate being confirmed, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide issuance of the order dated 11.06.2016, by invoking the provisions of Sub- Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner having already completed his training and being posted against a post in the Force, respondents could not have invoked the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and in the event, any misconduct was found to have been committed by the petitioner, herein, appropriate proceedings under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, was mandated to be instituted. He submits that no proceedings under the Rules, 1965, being instituted, the termination of services by invoking the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was clearly without jurisdiction and accordingly the said order would mandate an interference from this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the HSLC certificate as furnished by the petitioner at the time of reporting for his training has been brought on record by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them in the present matter. He submits that in the said certificate, it has been recorded that the date of birth of the petitioner is ‘10.10.1988’. He further submits that upon verification of the said certificate, the authorities of the Board of Secondary Education Department, had brought on record that in terms of the date of birth as recorded in the records maintained by the Board, the date of birth of the petitioner is ‘01.02.1986’ and not ‘10.10.1988’, as reflected in the HSLC certificate produced by the petitioner. He further submits that the said manipulation with regard to the date of birth was so done to bring the petitioner within the age limit mandated for recruitment against the post as put up for recrui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document