Holding

A government servant who secures appointment by furnishing false information is liable to dismissal, and no lesser penalty is permissible.

Summary

Ram Saran was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force by falsifying his date of birth on a school certificate. After 27 years of service, a departmental enquiry found him guilty of furnishing false information to secure appointment, a violation of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act and Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. While the disciplinary authority initially imposed a one‑year reduction in rank, the Deputy Inspector General dismissed him, a decision upheld by the appellate authority and the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court held that a government servant who obtains appointment through fraud must be dismissed, as per GO No. 29/93 and the relevant service rules, and that courts may not substitute their judgment for the administrator’s unless there is illogical or procedurally improper decision‑making. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a government servant appointed on the basis of forged documents is liable to dismissal and whether any lesser penalty is permissible.
Whether the disciplinary authority’s imposition of reduction in rank was valid in view of the statutory provisions.
Scope of judicial review of administrative disciplinary decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Entitlement to pension or gratuity after dismissal for fraud.

Legislation cited

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949s. 11(1)
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955s. 27, s. 29
Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

forgeryfalse age certificateappointment frauddisciplinary dismissalcentral reserve police forceservice lawjudicial reviewadministrative discretionpension forfeituregovernment order 29/93CCS rulesWednesbury principle

Judgment

A RAM SARAN
v.
LG. OF POLICE, CRPF AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 2, 2006

B [ARIJJT PASA VAT AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]

Seervice law:

Appointment-On the basis of forged birth certificate-Disciplinary
C proceeding initiated after 27 years of service-Dismissal from service--
Propriety of-Held: Since the delinquent was not eligible for appointment
and had secured appointment on false information, he is liable to be
dismissed--CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965-Rule 14--CCS (Pension) Rules,-Rule
24--Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949-Section 11{1)-Central Reserve
D Police Force Rules, 1955-Rules 27 and 29.

Judicial Review:

Order of administrator-Judicial review-Scope of-Held, Court should
not interfere with administrator's decision unless it is illogical or suffers from
E procedural impropriety O/I shocking to the conscience of the Court-The
scope of interference in such matters is limited to deficiency in decision
making process and not the decision--Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e
226.

Appellant was appointed as a Constable in CRPF. After his having
F rendered service of about 27 years, he faced departmental enquiry on the
charge that he had furnished false information about his date of birth by
making alteration in his school certificate to secure appointment. Disciplinary
Authority decided that the appellant deserved stringent punishment. But in
view of his long service with good grading for the past 10 years, he took lenient
G view and imposed penalty of reduction of rank for a period of one year. Deputy
Inspector General directed his dismissal from service. Appellate Authority
confirmed the order of dismissal. Writ Petition filed against the order was
also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H 1102
RAMSARANv. I.G.OFPOLICE,CRPF[PASAYAT, J.] 1103
HELD: l. The present case does not deserve any leniency otherwise it A
would be giving premium to a person who admittedly committed forgery. In
the instruction (G.O. No.29/93), it has been provided that whenever it is found
that a Government servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the
recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false
information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, B
should not be retained in service. After inquiry as provided in Rule 14 of the
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 ifthe charges are proved, the Government servant
should be removed or dismissed from service and under no circumstances
any other penalty should be imposed. (1107-B, CJ

R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 105, C
relied on.

2. Courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless
it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to
the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or
moral standards. The Court would not go into the correctness of the choice D
made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute
its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited
to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
(1105-H; 1106-A)

V. Raman::i v. A.P. SRTC and Ors., [2005) 7 SCC 338 and (CA) Associated E
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: [1947)
2 All ER 680(CA), referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3044 of2003.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.2002 of the Bombay High
Court in Writ Petition No. 1878/2000.

Makarand D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Vijay Kumar and Vishwajit Singh for the
Appellants.
G
Vikas Singh, A.S.G. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and Ms. Sushma Suri
for the Respondents.
,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution').

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

B The appellant applied for appointment as a Constable in Central Reserve
Police Force (in short 'CRPF') and appeared for recruitment test on 1.5.1951.
In support of his claim of age he produced a certificate where his date of birth
was stated to be l. l. l 951. But in reality as was revealed later, his date of birth
was 1.7 .1951. Therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed as he was less
..
than 18 years of age. He undisputedly rendered about 27 years of service. But
C on the basis of certain alteg<itions he faced departmental inquiry. Article of
charge reads as follows:-

"ARTICLE- I

That the said HC No.690342131 HC Ram Saran of C/45 Bn CRPF h<tS
D committed an offence on his part that he furnished a false information
about his date of birth by making alteration in his school certificate
to secure appointment as constable for which he was not eligible in
terms of recruitment rules which is punishable under section 11 (I) of
CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 11(2) of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965."
E The Deputy Commandant 45/BN. CRPF was appointed as Inquiry Officer
to conduct the Departmental Enquiry. After enquiry the Inquiry Officer
submitted the inquiry report. The Commandant (S.G.), the Disciplinary
Authority after considering the report was of the view that the charge official
deserves stringent punishment. But keeping in view his long service of 28
F years with good grading for the past I 0 years, he was inclined to take a
lenient view and in purported exercise of power under Section 11(1) of the
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short the 'Act') and Rule 27 of the
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules') imposed
penalty of reduction to the rank of NK (GD) for a period of one year from
G 10.9.1997 to 9.9.1998 without cumulative effect. The matter was placed before
the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Nagpur who by order dated
16.1.1998 differed from the proposed punishment and directed dismissal from
service. Accordingly, notice was issued to the appellant. After considering
the reply the punishment awarded was dismissal from service. The said order
was challenged in appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority which
H was dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed, which as noted above
RAM SARAN v. l.G. OF POLICE, CRPF [PASAYAT, J.] 1105
was dismissed. A
_;
The High Court noted that under Rule 29(d) of the Rules the concerned
authority had power to enhance the punishment. Since the appellant had
entered into service on the basis of false date of birth, the writ ·petition was
not entertained and it was observed that the appellant on removal from
service was not entitled to gratuity and other such benefits. B
In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant urged that
the appellant poor youngster belonging to remote rural place had with a view
; to obtain an employment submitted a certificate. The age of appellant then
was only two months short of the requisite age. After serving for nearly 28
years when he was about to take voluntarily retirement from service, the c
proceedings were initiated. The order of removal of service is very bad and
if the same is maintained he would not be entitled to any gratuity or pension.

In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in a
disciplined force there was no scope for taking lenient view for a person who
D
obtained employment on the basis of forged document. It was pointed out
that on the basis of binding instructions contained in Government of India,
Department of Personnel and Training, OM No.1101217/91 Estt. (A) dated
19.5.93 (G.O. No. 29/93) dismissal from service was the only punishment
. imposable. .
In fact, the DIG, CRPF had referred to said instructions while
differing from the punishment proposed. Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules E
reads as follows:-

"24. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal:

-I Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service or
post entails forfeiture of his past service." F
Therefore, in case of removal from service, the entitlement of pension
is statutorily taken away. The only other plea advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant seems the completion of 27 years of service. It was pointed
out that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged infraction.
G
The Courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless
it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the
.. conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral
standards. In view of what has been stated in (CA) Associated Provincial
Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) I KB 223: (1947] 2 All ER
H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) I S.C.R.

A 680(CA) commonly known as Wednesbury 's case the Court would not go into
the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the
Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The
scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process
and not the decision. (See: V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC and Ors., (2005] 7 SCC
B 338).
-
In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a and Ors., (2004] 2 SCC 105
it was observed as follows:

"It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel ..
for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years
c of service, the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of
compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary
benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this
submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service
benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant
D obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate
by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His
appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law.
The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and
legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary
benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal.
E Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was
found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste
certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false
caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a
Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate
of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or
F
indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with
clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot
plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity
jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a
fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in
G the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false
caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable
consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity
or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case •
where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud."

H
,..

RAM SARAN v. i.G. OF POLICE, CRPF [PASA YAT, J.] 1107
Though the case related to a false caste certificate, the logic indicated A
clearly applies to the present case.

This is a case which does not deserve any leniency otherwise it would
be giving premium to a person who admittedly committed forgery. In the
instruction (G.O. No.29/93), it has been provided that whenever it is found
that a government servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the B
recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false
information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment
should not be retained in service. After inquiry as provided in Rule 14 of the
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 if the charges are proved, the government servant
should be removed or dismissed from service and under no circumstances C
any other penalty should be imposed.

In that view of the matter the appeal is without merit and is dismissed
but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

K.K.T. • Appeal dismissed. D