Delhi High Court
Sh. Inderjeet Kumar Tiwari vs Union Of India And Ors. on 22 August, 2023
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 22.08.2023
+ W.P.(C) 4756/2018
SH. INDERJEET KUMAR TIWARI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bhakt, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Central Government
Standing Counsel with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and
Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocates.
Mr. R.N. Parikh, CRPF.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 19.12.2015, whereby petitioner
was dismissed from service. Petitioner also impugns order dated
05.02.2016 and 08.06.2016, whereby the appeal and the revision of
the petitioner, respectively were dismissed. Petitioner seeks
reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
2. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable, General Duty with the
respondents on 10.04.1991. Petitioner thereafter also earned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:24.08.2023
13:03:49
promotion to the rank of Havaldar (GD). Subsequently, respondents
found that petitioner had submitted a forged class-X certificate. After
an enquiry and disciplinary proceedings, petitioner was imposed the
subject punishment of dismissal from service.
3. On 04.07.2018, learned counsel for petitioner at the outset
stated that he did not propose to challenge the impugned order on
merits, but only confined the relief to the proportionality of
punishment awarded to the petitioner of dismissal from service in light
of the fact that he had rendered 25 years' of service in the Central
Reserved Police Force.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterates his submission and
submits that he restricts his prayer to question the proportionality of
the punishment awarded to the petitioner. He relies upon the averment
made by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that there is no
finding of the authorities on the aspect of proportionality of the
punishment and the respondents were willing to consider the
representation of the petitioner afresh.
5. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for
petitioner, for the reason that the petitioner is found to have submitted
a forged class-X certificate. It is not in dispute that qualifying class-X
is an eligibility criteria for joining the force at the rank of Constable.
Since admittedly the petitioner did not possess the said qualification,
the mere fact that petitioner was enlisted in service based on a
certificate which is forged would not entitle him to continue in service.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:24.08.2023
13:03:49
6. The question of proportionality would arise only if a lesser
punishment could be awarded to the petitioner. In the instant case,
there can be no punishment lesser than punishment of removal for the
reason that petitioner does not possess the eligibility qualification for
being enrolled as a Constable in the CRPF i.e. having passed class-X.
7. We may further refer to the recent judgment of the Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.246 of 2017, Ex. Sepoy Madan Prasad Vs.
Union of India and Others, wherein the Supreme Court has held has
that one must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit
hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of
service.
8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition. The
petition is consequently dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MANOJ JAIN, J
AUGUST 22, 2023
NA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:24.08.2023
13:03:49
