AFTAB AHMED MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Aftab Ahmed Malik, was employed as a Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF after being selected through the CAPFs Exam 2013-14. Despite having successfully completed all recruitment stages and serving faithfully from 2015 to 2022, the appointment of petitioner was challenged due to an alleged error in the State code entered in his application form, he entered code of Lakshadweep instead of Jammu & Kashmir's. Following a writ petition by another candidate challenging the selection of petitioner, the SSC issued a show cause notice in 2018, and an inquiry in 2022 found the petitioner guilty of misconduct for providing incorrect information. Consequently, he was removed from service by an order dtd. 30/7/2022. The appeal of petitioner and subsequent revision against this removal were dismissed, culminating in the impugned order dtd. 11/4/2023. The petitioner contends that the mistake was an inadvertent error, that relevant documents clearly showed his actual domicile (Jammu & Kashmir), and that the SSC failed in its duty to verify the information properly during recruitment. He challenges his removal as unjust and seeks reinstatement and has prayed for following reliefs by way of this writ petition :-

(2.) Facts of the case, as canvased in this writ petition, are that the petitioner, Aftab Ahmed Malik, was selected as a Constable (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) through the CAPFs Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the year 2013-14. He successfully cleared all required stages, including the physical efficiency test, physical standard test, and medical examination. The results were declared on 30/5/2014, and the petitioner was formally selected under the general category on 1/4/2015. He served in the CRPF with honesty and dedication from 1/4/2015 until 30/7/2022. However, a candidate named Sheraz Ahmed, who was unsuccessful in the same examination, filed a writ petition (SWP No. 3230 of 2015) challenging his non-selection. In the petition, Sheraz Ahmed pointed out the name and roll number of petitioner, alleging that the petitioner was selected despite scoring lower. It was claimed that the petitioner had been wrongly selected against the Lakshadweep state quota by declaring state code 19 in his application, whereas he actually belonged to Jammu & Kashmir, which uses state code 15. At the time, the petitioner was serving in the 117 Battalion of CRPF with force number 155230522. Following this, the SSC issued a letter dtd. 16/5/2018 directing the DIG CRPF in Pinjore, Haryana, to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner for providing incorrect state code information and to consider appropriate action. Consequently, on 23/6/2018, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, informing him of his disqualification after a revision of the results by the SSC. The petitioner was asked to explain why his appointment should not be cancelled for submitting wrong information in his application and not following the examination guidelines. In response, the petitioner submitted appropriate replies to the show cause notice. Letters dtd. 19/7/2018 and 17/8/2018 from the Commandant of the 117 Battalion, CRPF, supported the claim of petitioner. The commandant noted that the petitioner had clearly mentioned his home address as Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir, in his application and other recruitment documents. It was suggested that the incorrect state code 19 may have been an inadvertent oversight. The commandant also stated that it was the responsibility of the SSC to verify the correctness of the state code during the recruitment process and recommended that the petitioner be allowed to continue serving in the CRPF, with necessary amendments made to avoid causing financial hardship. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted on 6/1/2022 while the petitioner was posted with the E/195 Battalion in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. The inquiry found the petitioner guilty of disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, and misconduct under Sec. 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. It was held that the petitioner had committed a serious offense by incorrectly declaring the state code in his application form, leading to his wrongful appointment as a Constable (GD). This misconduct was deemed prejudicial to the discipline of the Force and punishable under the CRPF Rules, 1955. Consequently, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dtd. 30/7/2022. Despite the findings of inquiry, the inquiry officer acknowledged in the report that the petitioner had clearly mentioned his correct domicile (Jammu & Kashmir) in the application and related documents. The inquiry officer also opined that the SSC failed to detect and act on the mistake at the time of selection. The petitioner filed an appeal against his removal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, to the office of the DIG, Rampur Range, CRPF. However, the appeal was dismissed, and the removal order was upheld by an order dtd. 21/11/2022, communicated to the petitioner on 23/11/2022. The petitioner then filed a revision petition under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, with the office of respondent No. 4. This revision was also rejected, and the removal order was maintained by the impugned order dtd. 11/4/2023. The petitioner contends that the order of removal is excessively harsh and arbitrary, especially considering his nearly eight years of faithful service in the CRPF, risking his life for the country. The petitioner alleges malafide intent and negligence on the part of the SSC for failing to verify the state code earlier. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a candidate in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in 2013-14, submitted his application form with full honesty and transparency. The petitioner clearly mentioned his permanent home address as District Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir in the application and supporting documents. However, due to inadvertence and a genuine oversight, he mistakenly entered the state code as '19' (Lakshadweep) instead of the correct state code '15' (Jammu and Kashmir) on the application form. This error was purely clerical and unintentional, and there is no evidence to suggest any fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner. It is significant to note that the domicile certificate and other supporting documents of petitioner, submitted during the recruitment process, correctly indicated Jammu and Kashmir as the place of residence of petitioner. Furthermore, all official communications, including call letters and selection letters, were sent by the SSC to the actual address of petitioner in Jammu and Kashmir. This demonstrates that the recruitment agency was aware of the correct domicile of petitioner and that any discrepancy in the state code was overlooked by the respondents. Had the petitioner harbored any intention to defraud the recruitment authority, he would not have furnished all the necessary and truthful information regarding his permanent address, nor would he have maintained consistency in his correspondence details. Therefore, the assertion that the petitioner deliberately misrepresented his domicile to gain an unfair advantage is wholly baseless and untenable. It was the primary responsibility of the SSC and the recruitment board to diligently verify the correctness of the application form, including the accuracy of the state code, by cross-checking with all related documents at the time of the recruitment process. The failure to identify the discrepancy at the initial stage and the subsequent acceptance of the candidature of petitioner amount to a clear negligence on the part of the respondents. The petitioner was allowed to join the force, and no objections were raised by the respondents during his recruitment, posting, and service period which spanned over seven years and three months. This long and uninterrupted service period without any adverse remarks underscores the acceptance of the candidature of petitioner and domicile by the authorities. The respondents cannot now turn around and penalize the petitioner for an error that went unnoticed and unchallenged for such a substantial period.