DHANPAT SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The statement of articles of charges framed against the petitioner read as under:-

(2.) The Inquiry Officer has held that whereas Article 1 of the charge was fully proved, Article 2 was partially proved and Article 3 was not proved.

(3.) The findings are self-contradictory for the reason pertaining to Article 3, the Inquiry Officer has treated the petitioner to be Dhanpat Singh and that the domicile certificate No.1708 dated May 05, 1988 was correct and authentic. Now, for the said domicile certificate to be correct and authentic the petitioner would be required to be residing in Delhi for 3 preceding years, which would mean that since March, 1985 the petitioner was residing in Delhi and this would mean that the petitioner would have obtained his matriculation degree in the year 1985.