PARIMAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was recruited into the C.R.P.F. on 24-4-1991. After over seven years of service he has been dismissed in terms of the impugned order dated 8-12-1997 of the Commandant 81 BN CRPF. The salient part of this Order reads as follows:

(2.) An Appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was filed on 29-12-1997 which was rejected on 29-5-1998. A Revision ap- plication under Rule 29 of the Rules was filed by the Petitioner on 14-7-1998 which was rejected on 15-12-1998. Thereafter the Petitioner sent a Memorandum to the Director General, CRPF on 18-1-1999 which also did not find favour in terms of Order dated 25.6.1999.

(3.) As will be evident from the extracted portion of the impugned dismissal Order dated 8-12-1997 the Petitioner had submitted a fake educational certificate with the intention of falsifying his date of birth. This has not been contradicted. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner before me was that the Petitioner was led to believe that his case would be considered sympathetically, and that he, therefore, une- quivocally pleaded his guilt to the charge of filing a false educational certificate. It was also reiterated that the Petitioner had drawn the attention of the Respondents to Rule ll(h) of the Rules which permitted a relaxation in the upper age limit in the case of candidates belonging to the special categories of persons in accordance with Orders issued from time' to time by the Central Government. The contention was that the Petitioner belonged to the OBC category. Being unaware of the scope for relaxation in the upper age limit he had filed the fake educational certificate so as to depict himself to be younger than his actual age, but otherwise he had duly cleared the Higher Secon- dary Examination. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, submitted that the true and correct educational certificate had been filed before the Respondents. Along with correct educational certificate the Petitioner had also placed the Certificate of 'Other Backward .Category' issued by the Tehsildar, Murena. It was contented that in view of the Respondents holding out that the Petitioner's case would be considered sympathetically, the awarding of the punishment of dismissal was not only contrary to impression given to the Petitioner but also far too excessive.