Full Judgment Text
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 20.01.2026
+ W.P.(C) 16005/2022, CM APPL. 49938/2022
SER MOHAMMED SK
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pavan Kumar and Mr. Akhlesh
K. Soni, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC, Mr. Animesh
Rastogi, Mr. Shashank Pandey, Mr.
Rajat Dubey, Advs., Mr. V.S Rawat,
AC and Inspector Sanjay.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“a) Quash the office orders dated 08.6.2022,
29.6.2022 and 26.8.2022 passed by the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3;
b) Reinstate the Petitioner in service to the post of
Constable in the Respondent-Department with all
consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice; and”
2. The challenge is primarily to the office orders dated 08.06.2020,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
13:12:59
W.P. (C) 16005/2022 Page 1 of 3
26.08.2020 and 29.06.2022, whereby, the petitioner was removed from
service without being disqualified for future employment and the review
thereof against the said order has been rejected.
3. The petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable
(Tradesmen), which includes Barber, Boot Maker, Cook etc. On 18.01.2017,
he was recruited as Constable Tradesman (Barber) in the
respondents/Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”) and was given an
offer letter dated 18.01.2017.
4. On 07.02.2017, on a complaint made against the petitioner that he has
submitted a fake Industrial Training Institute (“ITI”) certificate at the time of
selection to the post of Constable Tradesman (Barber) and upon verification
of the documents, it was found that the ITI certificate submitted by the
petitioner was not genuine. The aforesaid resulted in a decision to conduct a
departmental enquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and
accordingly, a charge-sheet dated 20.03.2020 was issued to the petitioner
wherein Articles of charges were framed against the petitioner.
5. It is a conceded case that the charges against the petitioner have been
proved by the enquiry officer, which finally resulted in his removal from
service without disqualification for future employment under the
Government. The appeal and the review thereof have also been rejected by
the said authorities.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that
the qualification of ITI in the concerned trade is not an eligibility for
appointment to the post of Constable Tradesman (Barber) and as such, even
if certificate, is fake, the same would not have a bearing insofar as the
appointment is concerned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
13:12:59
W.P. (C) 16005/2022 Page 2 of 3
7. We are not impressed by such a submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, for the reason that, a fake certificate has been given by the
petitioner, which resulted in prescribing certain marks in favour of the
petitioner, resulting in his appointment. That would be sufficient enough for
the respondents to initiate a departmental action against the petitioner and
also for the enquiry officer to prove the charges against the petitioner
resulting in his removal from service.
8. The plea of the equity raised by the counsel for petitioner also does
not appeal to us, more so, in view of seriousness of the misconduct which
has been proved. We are of the view that the present writ petition has no
merit and is liable to dismissed. We order accordingly. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JANUARY 20, 2026 /sr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
13:12:59
W.P. (C) 16005/2022 Page 3 of 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 20.01.2026
+ W.P.(C) 16005/2022, CM APPL. 49938/2022
SER MOHAMMED SK
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pavan Kumar and Mr. Akhlesh
K. Soni, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC, Mr. Animesh
Rastogi, Mr. Shashank Pandey, Mr.
Rajat Dubey, Advs., Mr. V.S Rawat,
AC and Inspector Sanjay.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“a) Quash the office orders dated 08.6.2022,
29.6.2022 and 26.8.2022 passed by the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3;
b) Reinstate the Petitioner in service to the post of
Constable in the Respondent-Department with all
consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice; and”
2. The challenge is primarily to the office orders dated 08.06.2020,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
13:12:59
W.P. (C) 16005/2022 Page 1 of 3
26.08.2020 and 29.06.2022, whereby, the petitioner was removed from
service without being disqualified for future employment and the review
thereof against the said order has been rejected.
3. The petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable
(Tradesmen), which includes Barber, Boot Maker, Cook etc. On 18.01.2017,
he was recruited as Constable Tradesman (Barber) in the
respondents/Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”) and was given an
offer letter dated 18.01.2017.
4. On 07.02.2017, on a complaint made against the petitioner that he has
submitted a fake Industrial Training Institute (“ITI”) certificate at the time of
selection to the post of Constable Tradesman (Barber) and upon verification
of the documents, it was found that the ITI certificate submitted by the
petitioner was not genuine. The aforesaid resulted in a decision to conduct a
departmental enquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and
accordingly, a charge-sheet dated 20.03.2020 was issued to the petitioner
wherein Articles of charges were framed against the petitioner.
5. It is a conceded case that the charges against the petitioner have been
proved by the enquiry officer, which finally resulted in his removal from
service without disqualification for future employment under the
Government. The appeal and the review thereof have also been rejected by
the said authorities.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that
the qualification of ITI in the concerned trade is not an eligibility for
appointment to the post of Constable Tradesman (Barber) and as such, even
if certificate, is fake, the same would not have a bearing insofar as the
appointment is concerned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
13:12:59
W.P. (C) 16005/2022 Page 2 of 3
7. We are not impressed by such a submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, for the reason that, a fake certificate has been given by the
petitioner, which resulted in prescribing certain marks in favour of the
petitioner, resulting in his appointment. That would be sufficient enough for
the respondents to initiate a departmental action against the petitioner and
also for the enquiry officer to prove the charges against the petitioner
resulting in his removal from service.
8. The plea of the equity raised by the counsel for petitioner also does
not appeal to us, more so, in view of seriousness of the misconduct which
has been proved. We are of the view that the present writ petition has no
merit and is liable to dismissed. We order accordingly. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JANUARY 20, 2026 /sr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
13:12:59
W.P. (C) 16005/2022 Page 3 of 3