Dismissed¶19

Ex Ct. (Cook) Sushil Kharwar v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC29 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4017/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BSF Constable (Cook) service termination; provisional enrolment cancelled on verification; fake trade certificate ESSCI Electronics Sector Skills Council of India Varanasi NSDC National Skill Development Corporation food production training; Show Cause Notice; explanation non-satisfactory; representation rejected; reinstatement with consequential benefits sought and refused; adequate opportunity to substantiate claim; appointment letter terms and conditions; W.P.(C) 4017/2026; High Court of Delhi; Justice Anil Kshetarpal; Justice Amit Mahajan; decided 29.04.2026; Union of India and others respondents; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner had already been afforded adequate and sufficient opportunity to substantiate his claim; upon his failure to do so, his services came to be terminated. ¶15

Ex Ct. (Cook) Sushil Kharwar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondents' Orders dated 31.07.2024 (IO-1, termination of service) and 17.02.2025 (IO-2, rejection of representation) call for interference, and whether the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits.

¶9

Court's answer

The Petitioner had already been afforded adequate and sufficient opportunity to substantiate his claim; upon his failure to do so, his services came to be terminated.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner failed to establish that he had, in fact, undergone skill training in food production from the ESSCI.

¶15

Key takeaways

The termination of the Petitioner's service was in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the appointment letter; since the trade certificate provided by the Petitioner was found to be fake, his provisional enrolment was liable to be cancelled.ratio¶17
In the absence of any cogent and/or credible material in support of the Petitioner's claim, no ground for interference is made out.ratio¶18
This Court finds no infirmity in the Orders passed by the Respondents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 4017/2026 (Delhi HC, 29.04.2026, Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan): A Constable (Cook) in the BSF, enrolled provisionally in 2024 subject to verification of documents, had his appointment cancelled (Order dated 31.07.2024, 'IO-1') after verification showed that his food-production trade certificate, purportedly issued by ESSCI, Varanasi under the aegis of NSDC, was never issued by that institute; his representation against IO-1 was rejected (Order dated 17.02.2025, 'IO-2'). The Court held that the Petitioner had been afforded adequate and sufficient opportunity to substantiate his claim but failed to establish that he had undergone the claimed skill training; that the termination accorded with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the certificate being fake and the provisional enrolment accordingly liable to cancellation; and that, absent cogent or credible material, no ground for interference existed and no infirmity was found in the Respondents' Orders. Reinstatement with consequential benefits was not granted; the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶1

$~53

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4017/2026 EX CT. (COOK) SUSHIL KHARWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. for UOI.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 29.04.2026

¶9

By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails Orders dated 31.07.2024 and 17.02.2025 issued by the Respondents and seeks direction for reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. By way of Order dated 31.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „IO-1‟], the service of the Petitioner, who was serving as a Constable (Cook) in the Border Security Force (BSF), came to be terminated. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner submitted a representation challenging the validity of IO-1, however, the same also came to be rejected by way of Order dated 17.02.2025 [hereinafter referred to as „IO-2‟].

¶10

Pithily put, in the year 2024, the Petitioner was enrolled as a Constable (Cook) with the BSF. As per the terms and conditions laid down in the appointment letter, the said appointment was merely provisional in nature, subject to confirmation after due verification of documents produced by the Petitioner at the time of enrolment.

¶11

It has been claimed by the Petitioner that he had undergone skill

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 12:39:34

¶14

training in food production from the Electronics Sector Skills Council of India (ESSCI), Varanasi under the aegis of National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC). However, upon verification, it transpired that the aforesaid institute does not provide skill training in food production, and the trade certificate relied upon by the Petitioner was never issued by the said institute.

¶15

Upon discovery of the aforestated discrepancy, the Competent Authority issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner, calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be terminated from Service. In response, the Petitioner stated that he assumed that such conditions have been relaxed. Having found the explanation rendered by the Petitioner, non-satisfactory, the appointment of the Petitioner came to be cancelled by way of the IO-1. 5. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner filed a representation challenging the IO-1, however, upon giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances, the same came to be rejected by the Competent Authority by way of IO-2. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking our indulgence. 6. We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, we highlight that the Petitioner had already been afforded adequate and sufficient opportunity to substantiate his claim, however, upon his failure to do so, his services came to be terminated. Moreover, the Petitioner has failed to establish that he had, in fact, undergone skill training in food production from the ESSCI. 8. It is also important to highlight that the termination of the Petitioner‟s service is in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the appointment letter, in as much as the trade certificated

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 12:39:34

¶17

provided by the Petitioner was found to be fake, therefore, his provisional enrollment was liable to be cancelled.

¶18

In the absence of any cogent and/or credible material in support of the claim of the Petitioner, no ground for interference is made out. 10. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the Orders passed by the Respondents.

¶19

Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

¶20

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶21

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶22

APRIL 29, 2026 /sp/hr

¶23

Ex Ct. (Cook) Sushil Kharwar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ex Ct. (Cook) Sushil Kharwar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Deenbandhu Malik Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vineet Kumar Chaudhary Vs State Bank of India

Green Fortune Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 30 Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Robin Aggarwal Vs Smt. Vidya

Ali Ahmed Khan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ariam Chatterjee Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vipan Singh Wazir Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr.

Bhoop Nath Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Chand Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Utkarsh Enterprises & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Babita and Anr. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. & Ors.

M/S Centro De Estudios De Materiales Y Control De Obra S.A. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.