Non-Combat Roles In Security Forces Not Trivial, Even Minor Lapse Can Endanger Country: Delhi High Court

Stating that no role is trivial in security forces, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Water Carrier from CRPF over submission of a fake matriculation certificate.

Rejecting the plea that he was non-combat staff— not involved in any security duty and the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate, a division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav remarked,

“It cannot be more indispensable in a security/Police Organization. A minor and trivial looking lapse may endanger the life, limbs and property of CRPF personnel, common men and country too.”

Petitioner was appointed to the post in 2011 but when his educational documents were verified, it was discovered that his matriculation certificate was bogus. He was thus dismissed from service in 2018.

Petitioner submitted that there was no intention to cheat; rather furnishing of bogus document was a bona fide mistake inasmuch as he had lost his original mark sheet and the mark sheet submitted to the CRPF authorities was a duplicate mark sheet obtained through a relative, believing the same to be correct.

It was further claimed that all particulars in the duplicate mark sheet were correct except for one digit in the Roll number and the marks obtained by him.

CRPF opposed the plea citing Clause 10(2) of an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel & Training in 1993. The OM talks about qualification and eligibility in terms of Recruitment Rules and provides that if someone has furnished false information at the time of initial recruitment, he should not be retained in service.

Further, Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, an enquiry is to be held and the government servant is liable to be removed from service, if the charges in the enquiry stands proved.

The High Court at the outset observed that Petitioner's case did not appear to be bona fide mistake inasmuch as marks obtained are one of the most important aspects of a mark sheet, and it is almost impossible that one would forget the marks obtained by him.

“Therefore, the Petitioner knew, in his heart of hearts, that the document being furnished by him was not a correct document. In case, he had lost his document, then he should have brought out the fact before the Authorities instead of submitting something which was not a genuine document. This aspect takes away the element of bona fide from the claim of the Petitioner.”

The bench added,

“Any service especially Defence and Security Services, require a kind of trust between the employer and employee and it is all the more essential where the security of life, limbs and property of the citizens of the country are concerned.”

As such, the plea was dismissed.

Appearance: Mr. Mohan Kumar and Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Avnish Singh, SPC with Mr. Mahendra Vikram Singh and Ms. Pushplata Singh, Advocates. Mr. Atharv, Inspector CRPF and Mr. Ramniwas, CRPF.

Case title: Amit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

Case no.: W.P.(C) 8474/2019

Click here to read order