DAMBRU DHAR NAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT question arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether submission of a fake educational certificate for obtaining employment in CRPF would constitute and mis -conduct so as to entitle the competent Authority to impose punishment under Section 11 of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. The necessary facts which are required to be stated are that the petitioner was appointed as constable on Ist January 1975. He was promoted to the post of Head constable on 21st December 1985 after his qualifying the requisite test. Thereafter the petitioner in the year 1990, appeared in approved list 'D' test and qualified the same in order to earn promotion to the post of Sub -Inspector. Before he could be promoted to the post of Sub -Inspector, it came to the notice of the respondents authorities that he had obtained employment on the basis of a fake Matriculation certificate. Consequently, Article of Charges were drawn against the petitioner and inquiry was ordered after appointment of Sh. R.C. Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police as Inquiry Officer, by the Additional DIGP, Group Centre Bantalab Jammu vide his order dated 13th May, 1991. The inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. After the inquiry, Additional DIGP, Group Centre Bantalab, Jammu vide his order dated 23rd April 1992, awarded the punishment in the following terms to the petitioner: -

(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved of the punishment awarded, filed awrit petition in this court being SWP No. 1190/1992. This writ petition wasallowed by this court vide order dated 20th April 1999. The DisciplinaryAuthority was directed to pass fresh orders without being influenced by theearlier order passed by it. In compliance to the directions passed by thisCourt in the above said Judgement rendered in the said writ petition of thepetitioner, fresh inquiry was conducted and again punishment of removalfrom service was granted by the Additional DIGP, Group Centre Bantalab,Jammu vide his order dated 15th September 1999.

(3.) CONTENTION of Mr. P.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the respondents, however, is that such plea has not been raised in the writ petition by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such a plea. Objection of the learned counsel for the respondents requires to be ruled out because the plea raised in the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands already taken in paras 8 and 10 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the case of the petitioner would be covered by Clause(e) of Section 11(1) CRPF Act, 1949.