Ex. Constable Ram Singer vs Union Of India & Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 363 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging termination of his services. He was working as Constable in BSF. He was charged under Section 23 of the BSF Act. Allegation against him was that at the time of enrolment, he wilfully gave false answer to a question setforth in the prescribed form of enrolment. Against the column of his father's name, the name of Sh. Kailash Nath was mentioned who was in fact his father-in-law. Inquiry was held. Certain witnesses were examined. The petitioner allegedly pleaded guilty to the charge before Summary Security Force Court Proceedings. Thereafter services of the petitioner were terminated. Petitioner submitted appeal on 5.11.1993 under Section 117 of the BSF Act to the competent authority. However when no reply was received, petitioner filed this petition in which petitioner challenges order dated 14.4.1993 dismissing him from service with prayer for reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner has mainly contended that on applying for recruitment as Constable in BSF, he was called to office on 20.2.1991 and asked to state his father's name. Since his father-in-law Sh. Kailash Nath accompanied at the time of recruitment with whom he was staying, his name was inadvertently mentioned/recorded in place of his father's name Sh. Gharoon Prasad and his address. On coming to know of this inaccuracy and discrepancy in the service record petitioner submitted two applications praying for correction of the above said discrepancy. Thus according to him it was only an inadvertent error and there was absolutely no case against him and he was wrongly charged of making false statement. It is further submitted that he never pleaded guilty which was also recorded during the trial and on that ground he lost even valuable right of cross-examination of the witnesses. In any case, it his submission that punishment is so disproportionate to the offence and therefore cannot stand judicial scrutiny.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is explained that on 8.2.1990, petitioner approached the Assistant Director(Estt.) HQ. DG,BSF,New Delhi with an application for requesting for enlistment in BSF as Constable. In his application he had given his particulars as under:-

      Name           :    Ram Singer
     Son of         :    Kailash Nath Ex-CT No.
                         6623084.
     Vill. & P.O.   :    Aruja Bazar.
     Distt.         :    Gorakhpur (U.P.)
     Educational    :    Matric.
     Qualification
     Caste          :    Scheduled Caste.

 

4. Considering him to be the son of an ex-serviceman petitioner was directed to report to the Commandant 25 Battalion Chhawala Camp New Delhi by Assistant Director (Estt)HQ DG BSF New Delhi on 9.2.1990 for recruitment if found fit in all respects by Recruitment Board and taking up of a case for condensation in physical deficiency if required for approval of competent authority. He was found physically/medically fit by the Recruitment Board for enlistment as a Constable subject to his being given condensation in his height by 3.5 cms. and chest by 2 cms. It was condoned by HQ DG BSF New Delhi, considering him to be a son of ex-BSF personnel and he was enlisted as a constable in Border Security Force with effect from 8.3.1990. Thereafter he underwent basic training at 25 Battalion BSF Chhawala Camp, New Delhi upto 14.9.1990. On 25th Of May, 1990 Commandant 25 Bn. BSF Chhawala Camp, New Delhi forwarded his verification roll to the Distt.Magistrate Gorakhpur (UP) for verification of his character and antecedents vide their office letter No. Estt/CBR/Rectt/32/90/7250-7330/13274 dated 25.5.1990 which is essential requirement for a Government servant. After completion of Basic Recruit Training the petitioner was posted to 27 Battalion BSF against existing vacancy of a Constable and joined on 3.10.1990. In order to update his service book the petitioner was asked to produce his educational certificate. On scrutiny of this service particulars recorded in his service book and educational certificate, it was noticed that his father's name was actually Shri Prasad resident of village DEAUE KAMAL (GULHERA) P.O. BHITA P.S. USHIBA BAZAR Distt. Gorakhpur (UP) and not Shri Kailash Nath (Ex-Constable No. 66232084) village ASAUJI BAZAR P.O. ASAUJI BAZAR DISTT; GORAKHPUR State: U.P. This was further proved from the report of Distt. Magistrate Gorakhpur (UP) which was recorded in his character verification report that there is no such person at the given address in his verification roll. The same was therefore, sent afresh to the concerned District Authorities giving his correct father's name and residential address for verification of his character and antecedents which was received duly verified. Since a prima facie case was detected in getting his enrolment in BSF as a Constable, a departmental Court of Inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was charged by summary security force Court under section 23 of BSF Act, 1968 and as per disciplinary powers delegated to summary security force court as per BSF Act and Rules, he was dismissed from service considering all aspects of the case. Petitioner had also submitted a petition against the said punishment to the Directorate General BSF New Delhi and after due consideration of the whole matter, the same was rejected being devoid of merit vide letter No. 60213/93-Rectt/CLO/D&L BSF/697-701 dated 28.8.1994 communicated to him by registered post. The integrity of the petitioner had been found to be doubtful and is not likely to become a good soldier.

5. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the counsel. Original record was also produced for perusal.

6. From the material on record, it is clear that only because petitioner mentions the name of his father-in-law namely Shri Kailash Nath who was ex-Constable of BSF that he was recruited as Constable by condoning the requirement of height and chest. His height was short by 3.5 cms and chest was short by 2 cms than the required standard . Therefore in normal course, he could not have got the appointment at all as Constable. This deficiency was condoned treating him as son of ex-employee of BSF. It is therefore clear that the very appointment was given to the petitioner because of false declaration made in the application form submitted by him. I am not convinced with the explanation given by the petitioner that it was inadvertent error. Petitioner knew fully well his limitations that in normal course, he would not got appointment and therefore gave the name of his father-in-law against the column where he was supposed to give the name of his father. He accordingly got definite advantage by mentioning wrong name. The explanation given by him for alleged inadvertent error hardly inspires any confidence. Merely because his father-in-law was accompanying him could not justify the mentioning of his father-in-law's name and address of his father-in-law when he was asked to give the name of his father. There cannot be any occasion to give the name of father-in-law. Moreover record shows that he has pleaded guilty to the charge. Therefore, it is clearly as an after thought that he took the plea that he had pleaded not guilty and his submission was wrongly recorded. There is force in the submission of the respondents that the petitioner had intentionally avoided to produce educational certificates issued to him by Board of Education (UP) on 22.6.1987 before the Recruitment Board to avoid detection of his father's name and to avail the benefit of condensation in his physical deficiency at the time of recruitment by showing Shri Kailash Nath ex-Constable as his father. This was detected only when character verification report was received from District Magistrate, Gorakhpur through Commanding DG, BSF with a report that his character verification were made as he did not belong to village Asauji Bazar as mentioned in his verification roll. Even otherwise the witnesses were also examined during the trial and the allegations contained against the petitioner in the charge sheet stood proved on the basis of such an evidence. The record further shows that petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine but he did not cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore there is no force in any of the submissions made by the petitioner. It is also misconceived on the part of the petitioner to allege that the punishment imposed upon him is disproportionate to the allegations proved against him. The allegation of mentioning of wrong name and address is a serious charge that too when the petitioner got definite advantage by getting the appointment which he could not have got otherwise. Therefore the punishment imposed is proper and cannot be called as shockingly disproportionate to the charge.

7. This writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

8. No order as to costs.