JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty of “removal from service meted out to him on 25.08.2000 as also the appellate order dated 05.12.2000 whereby his appeal against the order of removal from service was rejected.
2. The petitioner has been removed from service as he allegedly produced false/bogus caste and domicile certificates. The case of the petitioner is that although the caste and domicile certificates which were produced by him in 1997 as a result of which he was enlisted in The CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) in July, 1997 against vacancies exclusively reserved for OBC and for residents of Delhi State, were fake, he had produced the same believing them to be genuine. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had produced a genuine caste certificate as well as a genuine domicile certificate of 2000. It is also submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner, in fact, belonged to the caste of Ahir which is a recognised Backward Caste. There was, however, some dispute with regard to the domicile certificate of 2000. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the said certificate disclosed the state of affairs in 2000, whereas what was necessary was the establishment of the factum of domicile in the year 1997 when the petitioner applied for enlistment in the CRPF. We shall advert to these arguments later on.
3. The facts leading up to the filing of the present writ petition need to be set out. As stated above, the petitioner was enlisted in the CRPF w.e.f. 07.07.1997 against vacancies exclusively reserved for OBC and for residents of Delhi State. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Respondents categorically submitted that the requirements for enlistment were essentially that the petitioner ought to have been a member of an OBC and ought to have been a resident of Delhi. The former could be established by producing a certificate to that effect and the latter could be substantiated in several ways, such as production of a Ration Card, ID Card, Voters Card issued by the Election Commission, Domicile Certificate, etc.
4. The Commandant, 54 Bn, CRPF issued a memorandum dated 12.02.2000 indicating that he proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The article of charge framed against the petitioner indicated that the petitioner, while functioning as Constable (GD), committed an offence of gross misconduct in the capacity as a member of the Force, inter alia, under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. In that, he produced fake / bogus caste and domicile certificates to the appointing authority at the time of his enlistment in the CRPF and secured appointment in CRPF as a Constable in a fraudulent manner. At the time the charge was framed, the petitioner was posted at Anantnag, J&K. On receiving the charge, the petitioner dispatched a letter to the Enquiry Officer on 15.03.2000 wherein he clearly stated that in his defense he wanted to engage an advocate but was unable to do so as he was posted in a disturbed area. It was also requested by him that he may be sent to the Unit Headquarters at New Delhi so as to afford him an adequate opportunity to take up a proper defense in the Enquiry. This request was rejected by the Enquiry Officer on 22.03.2000. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection was disclosed to him only during the course of the enquiry proceedings. The reason given for rejection of the request for the enquiry proceedings to be held at Delhi by the Enquiry Officer was simply–“it was not possible for me as disclosed in para 5 of the Enquiry Report dated 09.07.2000.
5. In the Enquiry proceedings, the petitioner had taken the defense that the petitioner had come from his village in search of his livelihood and had started residing in Delhi. In 1997, he applied for recruitment in the CRPF. He had also applied for a domicile certificate and the caste certificate in the Tis Hazari Court Complex with the help of some persons sitting outside and both the certificates were given to him by those persons. For the purposes of the domicile certificate, the petitioner had produced a Ration Card. He submitted that the entry in the records was not made by the Clerk and this could not be construed as amounting to any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. He also indicated that he was ready to produce new certificates certifying that he belonged to the Ahir caste which was a recognised Backward Caste and that he was a resident of Delhi. He also produced a copy of the Ration Card which was marked as defense Ex.-III. The same was issued in the name of one Ghoghar Yadav. He is stated to be the maternal uncle of the petitioner. S. No. 7 in the Ration Card discloses the name of the petitioner as well as his father’s name (Hanuman). The Enquiry Report discloses that the caste certificate and the domicile certificate of 1997 were fake. The Ration Card that was produced was also rejected, inter alia, inasmuch as, “it is not issued on the name of his father, it is issued on the name of Shri Ghoghar Yadav.” Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner had produced false domicile and caste certificates at the time of his enlistment as a Constable and that the charge framed against the petitioner was fully and conclusively “proved’ beyond any reasonable doubt.
6. Thereafter, the order for removal from service was passed by the Commandant, 54 Bn, CRPF on 25.08.2000. It is pertinent to note that in the said order, it was recorded that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to produce witnesses/evidence in his defense, but he could not give any list of defense witnesses or other evidence in his defense except the domicile and caste certificates issued by the SDM, Tis Hazari Court. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, New Delhi. In the Memo of Appeal, it was submitted that the petitioner had made a representation to the Enquiry Officer to engage an advocate and for the change of place of Enquiry as it was not possible for the applicant to engage an advocate and to set up a proper defense in Anantnag which was a disturbed area. The petitioner submitted that this request was unreasonably rejected and this prejudiced his defense. It was also mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the petitioner was a resident of Delhi and the Ration Card issued by the competent authority clearly disclosed this fact. He further submitted that the domicile certificate that was issued to the petitioner was on the basis of this Ration Card which has not been found to be fake or bogus. It was also urged that in terms of Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules of the CRPF, the only requirement for enlistment was that a person seeking enlistment must bear a good character and must be a citizen of India. So, according to the petitioner, in any event, the domicile was not relevant inasmuch as he was a citizen of India. It was also submitted that even if the certificates submitted in 1997 were not entered in the records at the SDM’s Office and, therefore, regarded to be fake, the fact that the petitioner belonged to the caste Ahir which was a recognised backward caste and that he was a resident of Delhi cannot be denied. Therefore, he was eligible to be enlisted. It was also urged that the entire Enquiry was not only illegal, but also against the principles of natural justice.
7. The appellate order discloses that the argument of the appellant that he obtained the caste certificate with the help of persons sitting outside Tis Hazari Court was not tenable inasmuch as it was the petitioner’s responsibility to produce the correct and genuine certificate while applying for Government services. With regard to the requirement of residence and the evidence of Ration Card produced by the petitioner, the appellate authority held as under:-
“Further, holding of Ration Card does not make one eligible to claim domicile of the area. Though name of appellant is mentioned in Ration Card, it is not issued in his father’s name but in the name of one Ghoghar Yadav, reportedly maternal uncle of appellant.”
8. Ms Rekha Palli, the learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the order of removal from service as well as the appellate order upholding such removal on several grounds:-
i) Firstly, she submitted that even if the caste certificate and the domicile certificate submitted in 1997 were taken to be fake, the fact still remains that the petitioner belonged to the Ahir caste which was a recognised backward caste and that he was a resident of Delhi.
ii) Secondly, the Enquiry was vitiated inasmuch as the same was conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. This is so because the petitioner, while being stationed in a disturbed area (Anantnag, J&K) had specifically requested for the conduct of the Enquiry in Delhi where he would be in a position to engage an advocate as well as produce other evidence both oral and documentary to defend his case. This opportunity was unreasonably denied to the petitioner merely because the Enquiry Officer felt that it was not possible for him.
iii) Thirdly, the petitioner has, in any event, produced genuine caste as well as domicile certificates, copies of which have been placed on record at pages 62 and 63 of the present paper book. Though these certificates were issued in 2000, they clearly establish the fact that the petitioner belonged to a backward caste and that he was a resident of Delhi in the last three years implying thereby that he was a resident of Delhi in 1997 when the application for enlistment in the CRPF had been made.
iv) Fourthly, the fact that the petitioner did belong to a backward caste and that he was a resident of Delhi in themselves indicate that the petitioner could not possibly have intended to produce fake certificates certifying the true facts. In this context, she submitted that the petitioner had no complicity in the production of the fake certificates and was himself as much a victim as any other.
9. Ms Manisha Dhir, the learned advocate, who appeared for the respondents, submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed inasmuch as it has been found as a fact that the petitioner submitted fake certificates and thereby got enlisted in the CRPF. This was a clear case of misconduct and the punishment of removal from service was the appropriate punishment for such misconduct. She submitted that it did not make any difference that the petitioner subsequently produced genuine certificates issued in the year 2000. According to her, what is material is that in the year 1997 when the petitioner sought enlistment, he produced fake certificates for that purpose. She, however, agreed that the two conditions that were necessary to be complied with were that the posts were for candidates belonging to the backward caste and for residents of Delhi. Insofar as the establishment of the fact of belonging to a backward caste was concerned, there is now no doubt that the petitioner does, in fact, belong to the Ahir caste which is a recognised backward caste. Production of a caste certificate at a later point of time, therefore, would not materially change the position. She, however, argued quite vehemently that the position with regard to the domicile certificate is quite different. While in the case of a caste certificate, once a person belongs to a particular caste, he remains in that caste, insofar as residence is concerned, the person may change his place of residence from time to time and, therefore, the date of issuance of the domicile certificate is of a great importance. The domicile certificate issued in 1997 was found to be fake. The domicile certificate in 2000 would not alter this position. Therefore, according to her, the criteria of residence was not sufficiently complied with and the impugned orders have, therefore, to be upheld.
10. Ms Dhir placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ex. Ct/GD Udai Shankar Ram v. Union of India: Writ Petition (C) 6753/2004 which was delivered on 29.07.2004. According to her, the present case was squarely covered by the decision in Udai Shankar Ram (supra). She submitted that the Division Bench in that case was also considering the question of a caste certificate which was found to be fake. She submitted that in that view of the matter, the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner therein and upheld the termination of services of the petitioner. She urged that the fact situation being the same, a similar order was required to be passed in the present writ petition also. We may straightway say that the decision in Udai Shankar Ram (supra) is clearly distinguishable. First of all, in that case, the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charge of submitting a fabricated certificate. In the present case, the petitioner did not plead guilty. Secondly, in that case, the petitioner (as disclosed in para 5 of the decision) had submitted a letter before the Enquiry Officer admitting that he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, therefore, he could not have been enrolled as a Constable against the Scheduled Tribe Quota. In the present case, the situation is entirely different. The petitioner has been found to belong to the caste Ahir and the same is a recognised backward caste. There is no dispute with regard to this. Thirdly, in that case, the allegations regarding violation of principles of natural justice and not providing assistance were raised in the writ petition for the first time and, therefore, they were not entertained. In the present case, as mentioned above, the petitioner has from the very inception sought for the assistance of an advocate and for the conduct of the Enquiry at Delhi inasmuch as he would then have been in a position to take proper assistance as well as be able to produce evidence, both oral as well as documentary in support of his defense. This request of his was denied on very cursory grounds as it was not possible for me. In these circumstances, we feel that the case in Udai Shankar Ram (supra) has been decided entirely on a different footing and the same is clearly distinguishable.
11. Ms Dhir then placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Distt. Collector & Chairman v. M.T. Sundari Devi: 1990 (4) SLR 237. She drew our attention to paragraph 4 of the said decision wherein it was recorded as under:-
“It has been brought to our notice during the course of the arguments that the original selection was made by mistake on the presumption that the respondents have satisfied the qualifications requirements as stated in the advertisement, without scrutinising the certificates copies of which were sent with her application.”
However, we note that in the meanwhile, the respondent therein had acquired the requisite qualifications and keeping that in mind, the Supreme Court came to the following conclusion:-
“Considering the fact that she is compelled to serve, that she has acquired the requisite qualification, that today she may be overaged for the post and the further facts that many who were under qualified were appointed to the post earlier, we feel that it will be unjust to deprive her of the post at this stage. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal but allow the appeal partially and direct that the respondent should be appointed in the post from the beginning of the ensuing academic year 1990-91. Since Shri Madhav Reddy contended that there is no vacant post at present, we further direct that if necessary, a post be created to accommodate her. She will however not be entitled to any benefits including back wages till her appointment.
This decision also does not come to the aid of the respondents. On the contrary, it provides us with an answer to the type of relief that the petitioner would be entitled to.”
12. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that for the purposes of enlistment in the CRPF in 1997 in respect of the post to which the petitioner was appointed two of the requirements were that the aspirants must belong to a backward caste and they must be residents of Delhi. Insofar as the fact that the petitioner is a member of the Ahir caste is concerned, the same is not disputed. Therefore, even if it is held that the caste certificate submitted in 1997 was not entered in the records of the Office of the SDM, it would not make any difference insofar as the petitioner’s eligibility on this count was concerned. The other eligibility condition of being a resident of Delhi could be satisfied by any one of the several pieces of evidence, such as production of a Ration Card, ID Card, Voters Card issued by the Election Commission, Domicile Certificate, etc. The petitioner had produced a Ration Card on the basis of which, it is alleged by the petitioner, that the domicile certificate submitted by him in 1997 was prepared. The authenticity and genuineness of the Ration Card is not in dispute. What has been stated in the impugned order is that the same cannot be taken into consideration because the Ration Card is not in the name of the petitioner’s father. This, to our minds, is untenable. The case of the petitioner was that his father resided in the village and that he had come to Delhi in search of a livelihood and was residing in Delhi Along with his maternal uncle Ghoghar Yadav in whose name the Ration Card was issued. What is material is that the Ration Card was genuine and that the petitioner’s name figured at S.No.7 thereof.
13. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioner had evidence to establish that he was a resident of Delhi in 1997 when he applied for enlistment. Thus, the fact that the domicile certificate of 1997 was not genuine would also not detract from the position that the petitioner was eligible, being a resident of Delhi in terms of the Ration Card. It is further relevant to notice that subsequently, in the year 2000, the petitioner had placed on record a domicile certificate showing that the same had been issued to him on the basis that he had been a resident of Delhi for the last three years. This certificate has not been questioned. Accordingly, this would also go to show that the petitioner was a resident of Delhi in the year 1997. Moreover, it is pertinent that we do not lose sight of the fact that because, factually speaking, the petitioner was a member of a Backward Caste and was a resident of Delhi, he did not derive any undue advantage by submission of the said certificates in 1997 which were subsequently found to be fake.
14. The petitioner is also entitled to succeed, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The reason for rejecting the petitioner’s request for conducting the Enquiry at Delhi rather than in the disturbed area Anantnag, J&K, are not sound or based on any legal principle. The reason for rejection was simply that it was not possible for me, which, to our minds, is no reason at all.
15. It was argued by Ms Palli that this resulted in grossly prejudicing the petitioner’s defense inasmuch as all the documents, the offices and the witnesses were in Delhi, whereas he was required to produce this evidence in Anantnag where no witness from Delhi would have then elected to go. This clearly spelt out a case of denial of an adequate opportunity to the petitioner to set up a proper defense against the charge levelled against him. We are in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that on this ground also, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.
16. Taking a cue from the decision of the Supreme Court in Distt. Collector (supra), we accordingly set aside the impugned appellate order dated 05.12.2000 and the order dated 25.08.2000 whereby the petitioner was removed from service. Being out of service for about five years, in our opinion, is sufficient chastisement for the petitioner’s misdemeanour in not submitting proper certificates in the first instance. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be reinstated within a period of four weeks. However, we feel that the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages or other benefits in respect of the period beginning on 26.08.2000 and till his reinstatement pursuant to our directions. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.