O R D E R

The order of discharge issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 16.02.2015 confirming the order of the fifth respondent dated 17.01.2012 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner joined as Sweeper in the Central Reserve Police Force on

25.08.2008 and the qualification for the post of Sweeper and Constable was eighth standard pass. The petitioner states that at the time of his enlistment, a certificate was attached by the agent without his knowledge, which he came to know later that it was not genuine. The petitioner states that he studied in the Government Higher Secondary School, Manalurpettai, Villupuram District, and the original transfer certificate was issued on 19.11.2007, which was not produced wrongly without any intention. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Constable. The fifth respondent, on 17.07.2010, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why action should not be initiated for producing false certificate. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued in proceedings dated 31.08.2010. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he had studied in the R.C.Middle School, Manalurpettai and the same was verified by the fifth respondent with reference to the genuineness of the certificate. Thereafter, the said departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated were dropped. However, the petitioner was not permitted to work in the Battalion and therefore, he proceeded to his native place. Subsequently, the fifth respondent issued the impugned order in proceedings dated 17.01.2012. On expiry of one month notice, the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 30.12.2011. The petitioner submitted a representation to the competent authority setting out the facts and circumstances, however, the competent authority rejected his representation on the ground that the petitioner has not brought out any new facts for the purpose of reconsidering the decision taken by the CRPF authorities.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was appointed on 25.08.2008 and as per Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, the period of temporary appointment is for three years alone. The petitioner has completed three years from the date of his appointment and thus, the issuance of notice to discharge his services itself is untenable. Once the petitioner had completed three years of service, he has to be considered as permanent employee for all purposes. That apart, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner, which would normally issued to a permanent employee and the said charge memo was also dropped. Thus, the petitioner was construed as permanent employee by the authorities and thus, issuance of notice treating the petitioner as temporary employee is incorrect and is in violation of Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules.

4. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the petitioner submitted a fake educational certificate and a charge memo was issued. On verification, the authorities found that the certificate produced by the petitioner was a bogus one even during the second occasion. The facts in this regard are stated in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the counter filed by the fourth respondent, which read as follows:

"4. I humbly submit that contention of the petitioner is due to his confusion and ignorance to differentiate effect of Memorandum/Departmental action and termination. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the charge of securing Government job by producing fake education certificate vide Memorandum No.P.VIII.9/2010-19-EC-II dated 31/08/2010. With regard to the Memorandum, the petitioner vide his application dated 01/10/2010 had submitted a letter of R.C.Middle School, Mamallur, Villupuram stating that he had studi