Petitioner challenged termination from CISF service for producing a forged caste certificate. The court upheld termination, noting the service was obtained via forgery. However, the court allowed a new application under a fresh advertisement.
Petitioner's termination proceedings dismissed; allowed to apply in fresh advertisements.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16809 of 2009 dt.26-02-2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16809 of 2009
=========================================================== Navin Chandra Pandit S/O Sri Yamuna Pandit R/O Vill- Jahangira, P.S. Jahangira, P.S. Sultanganj, Distt. Bhagalpur.
.... .... Petitioner Versus
.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, Asst. S.G.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-02-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India.
2 . In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F., Eastern Region, Headquarter, Patna vide V- 11014/EZ/Ad.11/Apl-22/09/1034 as well as for quashing the final order dated 20.05.2009 passed by the Group Commandant, C.I.S.F., Group Headquarter, Patna, vide Kra-V-15014/GHP/Prasha-1/Anu36/NCP/08-09/1698 on the basis of charge memorandum dated 18.10.2008, whereby and whereunder he has been terminated from the service on account of production of forged certificate.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16809 of 2009 dt.26-02-2018
2
3 . The petitioner was earlier the member of the Indian Army, entered there on 29.04.1982 and discharged from there on 01.05.1999. In the certificate issued by the Army where the petitioner’s caste as well as status has been mentioned as O.B.C. the caste “Prajapati”.
4. An advertisement was published by the Directorate, Central Industrial Security Force, wherein the posts has been bifurcated in general as well as different reserved category candidates. For O.B.C. 35 posts of constable, for head constable/GD 13 posts and for Assistant Sub-Inspector was 5 and on the basis of certificate issued by the S.D.O. Bhagalpur, wherein it has been shown that the petitioner is by caste “Kumhar” belongs to O.B.C. category is dated 12.04.2000. Certificate produced by candidates were sent for verification to concerned respective authorities and the S.D.O. returned the reply vide letter no. 1483 dated 06.06.2008 wherein, it has been mentioned that the certificate no.1158 dated 12.04.2000 showing the petitioner belongs to the “Kumhar” and O.B.C. was not issued from his office and that led to initiation of departmental proceeding, where the charge has been framed as follows:-
“ cy la[;k 024500278 vkj{kd uohu pUnz iafMr dsvjSlqc bdkbZ vkbZvklh cjkSuh us HkrhZ ds le; viuh tkfr ds laca/k esa
Patna High Court CWJC No.16809 of 2009 dt.26-02-2018
3
vU; fiNM+h tkfr dk tkyh izek.k i= la[;k% ¼1158½fnukad 1204-2000 izLrqr dj cy esa vU; fiNM+h tkfr ds vkjf{kr dksVs esa vkj{kd in ij fu;qfDr ikbZA bl izdkj mDr cy lnL; }kjk fd;k x;k mijksDr dk;Z ?kksj nqjkpj.k rFkk cy ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h gSA vr% vkjksi gSA”
5. The copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner for giving the show-cause which was replied and ultimately, the order dated 30.07.2009 was passed against the petitioner, terminating his service, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
6 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proving of the charge of forgery is to be done by the prosecution and in this case the prosecution has not acted in any manner to show that he was instrumental in obtaining the forged certificate. In support of submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in 2009(2) SCC 570 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the prosecution has to prove the charge through the witnesses.
7 . However, the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) was on different compass and matrix then to the present case as admittedly there is no denial that the petitioner has produced the certificate and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16809 of 2009 dt.26-02-2018
4
on that basis he had obtained the service. It is also not denied that the S.D.O. has written a letter on verification of the certificate that it was not issued from his office. In the present case, it is not important that the petitioner was belonging to the backward class or he by caste is “Prajapati”, but the important is that he has obtained the forged certificate on that basis he has been appointed. Had he failed to produce the certificate he would have contested with the general candidates, might have been appointed or might have not been appointed.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any wrong in the action of the respondent authority in dispensing with the service of the petitioner. But, it is made clear if the petitioner applies against fresh advertisement, the earlier certificate will not come in his way and his candidature will be decided on its own
merit.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
pawan/-
| AFR/NAFR | N.A.F.R. |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A. |
| UploadingDate | 13.03.2018 |
| Transmission Date |
N/A. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's termination from service for producing a forged caste certificate is maintainable.
Whether the discipline authority's reasoning that the petitioner obtained service based on a forged certificate justifies termination.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reconsidered for the post in case of a fresh advertisement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.Distinguished¶25
2009(2) SCC 570 · Who else cites this
Navin Chandra Pandit
Union Of India No.2 CISF
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
