Exct/Gd Vikas Singh vs Uoi & Ors

$~121 to 156
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 29 October, 2026
121
# CNR No. DLHC010483772023
+ W.P.(C) 15507/2023
EXCT/GD VIKAS SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
122
# CNR No. DLHC010473652026
+ W.P.(C) 14547/2026 & CM APPL. 68212/2026
EX CT GD SANDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY & ORS.
.....Respondents
123
# CNR No. DLHC010476892026
+ W.P.(C) 14665/2026 & CM APPL. 68591/2026
EX CT GD ATUL KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
124
# CNR No. DLHC010495822023
+ W.P.(C) 15726/2023
EXCT/GD NAVAJOT SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
125
# CNR No. DLHC010550112023
+ W.P.(C) 16407/2023
EX-CT/GD RAJENDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
126
# CNR No. DLHC010574532023
+ W.P.(C) 39/2024
EX CT/GD YADVENDRA YADAV .....Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 1 of 19

versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
127
# CNR No. DLHC010027972024
+ W.P.(C) 1309/2024
EX-CT/GD SUNIL KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
128
# CNR No. DLHC010047632024
+ W.P.(C) 1900/2024
EX-CT/GD ABHAY SINGH CHAUHAN .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
129
# CNR No. DLHC010047652024
+ W.P.(C) 1902/2024
EX.CT/GD ANMOL KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
130
# CNR No. DLHC010058252024
+ W.P.(C) 2031/2024
EX-CT/GD VINIT KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
131
# CNR No. DLHC010058672024
+ W.P.(C) 2077/2024
EX CT/GD RAMVEER SINGH KUSHWAHA .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
132
# CNR No. DLHC010080672024
+ W.P.(C) 2575/2024
EX CT/GD SACHIN KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 2 of 19

133
# CNR No. DLHC010083022024
+ W.P.(C) 2680/2024
EX CT/GD VIPIN KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
134
# CNR No. DLHC010140672024
+ W.P.(C) 4063/2024
EX.CT/GD NARENDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
135
# CNR No. DLHC010140752024
+ W.P.(C) 4071/2024
EX.CT/GD ROHIT .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
136
# CNR No. DLHC010140992024
+ W.P.(C) 4095/2024
EX.CT/GD MAN SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
137
# CNR No. DLHC010264882024
+ W.P.(C) 6620/2024
EX CT/GD DHARM VEER RAJPUT .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
138
# CNR No. DLHC010163262025
+ W.P.(C) 3829/2025
EX CT/GD DEEPAK .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
139
# CNR No. DLHC010165652025
+ W.P.(C) 3906/2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 3 of 19

EX CT/GD OMBIR KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
140
# CNR No. DLHC010329562025
+ W.P.(C) 7157/2025
EX-CT/GD ROHIT KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
141
# CNR No. DLHC010419892026
+ W.P.(C) 12944/2026 & CM APPL. 60213/2026
EX-CT/GD AMIR KHAN .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
142
# CNR No. DLHC010170132025
+ W.P.(C) 4003/2025
EX CT/GD UDAY VEER .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
143
# CNR No. DLHC010175072025
+ W.P.(C) 4130/2025
EX CT/GD AKHILESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
144
# CNR No. DLHC010184442025
+ W.P.(C) 4293/2025
EX-CT/GD DIP CHANDRA .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
145
# CNR No. DLHC010184452025
+ W.P.(C) 4294/2025
EX CT/GD PRASHANT KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 4 of 19

146
# CNR No. DLHC010191912025
+ W.P.(C) 4409/2025
EX.CT/GD SATYENDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
147
# CNR No. DLHC010192272025
+ W.P.(C) 4445/2025
EX CT/GD RAVI .....Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
148
# CNR No. DLHC010194572025
+ W.P.(C) 4520/2025
EX CT/GD CHETAN SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
149
# CNR No. DLHC010181552025
+ W.P.(C) 4200/2025
EX CT GD ARVIND KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
150
# CNR No. DLHC010231052025
+ W.P.(C) 5256/2025
EX CT GD VIPIN KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
151
# CNR No. DLHC011077962025
+ W.P.(C) 28/2026
EX - CT/GD KARAN SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
152
# CNR No. DLHC010450892026
+ W.P.(C) 13896/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 5 of 19

EX CT GD RAM SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
153
# CNR No. DLHC010458472026
+ W.P.(C) 14109/2026
EX CT GD GAURAV SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
154
# CNR No. DLHC010458552026
+ W.P.(C) 14112/2026
EX CT GD PARDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
155
# CNR No. DLHC010460362026
+ W.P.(C) 14159/2026
EX CT GD JHABAR MAL GURJAR .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
156
# CNR No. DLHC010461862026
+ W.P.(C) 14195/2026, CM APPL. 66511/2026
EX CT GD SURYA PRAKASH .....Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Appearance
For Petitioners:
Mr. Shanker Raju, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Mr. Vaibhav
Trivedi, Mr. Ashish Gupta and Ms. Prerna Sonal, Advocates in Items
No.121, 124 to 140, 142 to 150.
Mr. Sarvesh Singh and Mr. Durgesh Kumar Gupta, Advocates in Items
No.141 and 151 to 156.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 6 of 19

For Respondents:
Mr. Sharang Dhulia, CGSC with Mr. Karan Shankar Mani, Mr. Chetan
Jadon, Advocates for R1-3 in Item No.122.
Mr. Mayank Rustagi, SPC for UoI in Items No. 122 and 123.
Mr. Ratan Prakash, GP for UoI in Items No. 122 and 123.
Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal and Ms Ayushi Agarwal,
Advocates for UoI in Item No. 124.
Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, SPC with Mr. Amit Acharya, GP for UoI in Item
No. 125.
Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Muhammad Aamir Khan and Ms.
Amama Waseem, Advocates for UoI in Item No. 126.
Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC in Item No. 127.
Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Mr. Inderpreet Singh and Mr. Kunal Dixit,
Advocates for UoI in Item No. 130.
Mr. Vedansh Anand, SPC with Mr. Shivam Kumar, GP and Mr. Kush Garg,
Advocate for UoI in Item No. 132 and 140.
Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC for UOI in Item No. 135.
Mr. Hilal Haider, GP with Ms. Neha Tiwari and Mr. Rao Md Yusuf,
Advocates for UoI in Item No. 136.
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, SPC for UoI in Item No. 136.
Mrs. Snehlata S. Surana, CGSC with Ms. Neha Sharma, GP for UoI in Item
No. 137.
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, ⁠Ms. Nyasa
Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Mall and Ms. Nishtha Dhall, Advocates for UoI in
Item No. 138.
Mr. Vikas Kumar Sharma, SPC with Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate in Item
No. 139.
Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, SPC with Mr. Aryadeep Tyagi, Advocate for UoI in
Items No. 142 and 143 with Assistant Commandant Mr. Naresh Kumar,
CISF.
DC/Exe. Arvind Tomar, CISF in Item No. 143.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, SPC with Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate for UoI in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 7 of 19

Item No. 144 and 153.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, SPC for UoI in Item No. 145.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Tyagi, SPC for UoI in Item No. 147.
Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh, SPC with Mr. Varun Chugh and Ms. Rimpy
Rohilla, Advocates for UoI in Item No. 148.
Mr. Puneet Yadav, SPC for UoI in Item No. 149.
Mr. Deepender Banger and Ms. Simran Sharma, Advocates for UoI in Item
152 and 154.
Mr. Harshit Joshi, GP for UoI in Item No. 153.
Mr. Ayush Gaur, SPC with Ms. Ridhi Kapoor, Ms. Shivranjani, Mr. Varun
Parashar and Ms. Sonal Arun, Advocates for UoI in Items No. 152 and 154.
Ms. Chhavi Khandelwal, SPC with Ms. Priya Singh, GP for UoI in Item No.
155.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the respective Petitioners
challenging their termination from service by way of removal as also orders
of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeals filed by some of the
Petitioners against termination. Since common legal issues arise in these
petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. To the extent necessary, the facts as pleaded by the Petitioners are
that Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued Notification dated 24.01.2015
for recruitment to the posts of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA & SSF and
Rifleman in Assam Rifles. Petitioners applied for the post of Constable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 8 of 19

(GD) in CAPFs and cleared the written examination as also PET/PST and
medical examination and offers of appointment were issued to them on
different dates in 2017 by the respective Forces.
3. It is stated that letter dated 12.05.2016 was sent by IG (Special Ops),
BSF, Bengaluru to CBI informing that unfair means, in the form of
corruption, had been adopted at the time of recruitment at STC, BSF,
Bengaluru and there was suspicion that there were some senior officers of
BSF as also large number of personnel may be involved and thus,
investigation was required. CBI registered a case under Section 120-B read
with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 8, 12 and 13(2)
read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (1988 Act).
Thereafter, CBI filed a charge sheet on 20.10.2019 against 167 persons,
including the Petitioners and also recommended cancellation of selection
and consequent appointment of 165 candidates.
4. It is stated that pursuant to recommendation of CBI to Ministry of
Home Affairs (MHA) vide letter dated 17.09.2019, individual show cause
notices were issued to the Petitioners alleging that the Domicile Certificates
submitted by the Petitioners were obtained on the basis of fake documents
and false information and therefore, it was proposed to terminate their
services. Basis of the show cause notices, as stated therein, was verification
exercise into the character and antecedents of the Petitioners, their school
certificates, addresses mentioned in the enrolment forms as also application
forms. Petitioners submitted replies to the show cause notices denying that
the Domicile Certificates were based on fake documents or false
information and raised legal issues such as termination cannot be effected
without regular enquiry and lack of authentication by the Revenue
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 9 of 19

Authorities which issued the Domicile Certificates.
5. It is stated that despite satisfactory replies by the Petitioners and legal
grounds raised pointing out the illegality and arbitrariness in the stand of the
Respondents, termination orders were issued by the Respondents. Most of
the Petitioners statedly filed appeals against the termination orders, which
were also rejected and hence, the present petitions were filed.
COMMON CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS
6. Show cause notices sent to the Petitioners calling upon them to file
their responses was an empty formality as Respondents had already decided
to cancel the candidatures/appointments of the Petitioners, which is palpably
demonstrated from communication dated 14.01.2020 sent by Under
Secretary, MHA, Government of India to DIG, CRPF forwarding CBI letter
dated 17.09.2019, wherein it was stated that Competent Authority had
approved the recommendation of CBI to cancel the candidature of 165
candidates of 2015 Examination. Therefore, the show cause notices were a
mere farce and a smoke screen only to make out a case that Petitioners were
heard and principles of natural justice were complied with, whereas the fact
was that decision was already taken by the Government to terminate the
services of the Petitioners prior to the issuance of the show cause notices.
7. The show cause notices mentioned that the Domicile Certificates
were obtained by the Petitioners on the basis of fake documents and false
information, however, it is not brought forth as to which fake documents
were used by the Petitioners to obtain the Domicile Certificates and/or on
what basis Respondents came to a conclusion that the documents furnished
were fake or the information provided was false, since no independent
enquiry was conducted by the Respondents before reaching this erroneous
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 10 of 19

conclusion.
8. The Domicile Certificates furnished by the Petitioners are genuine
documents and have been issued by the concerned and competent revenue
authorities and till date the same have not been cancelled or even questioned
by the said authorities in the respective States. In fact, even the Respondents
have made no effort to make enquiries from the authorities issuing these
certificates to ascertain the authenticity and/or directing them to cancel the
certificates and the certificates being valid and genuine, there was no reason
to terminate the services of the Petitioners, merely because CBI had
recommended cancellation of candidature/termination of services.
Strangely, even in the CBI case, no officer belonging to the revenue
departments in various States responsible for issuing the certificates, are
co-accused.
9. Petitioners are regularly appointed employees and their services have
been illegally dispensed with, without conducting any enquiry or
disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the statutory rules of the
respective Forces, which is impermissible in law. The termination is thus
without any conclusive evidence on whether the Domicile Certificates are
fake since even the criminal prosecution is at a nascent stage. It is trite that
if there are allegations of misconduct or using fake or forged documents
against an employee, an employer is under a mandate of law to conduct an
enquiry and give an opportunity to the employee to lead evidence and
defend his case, failing which termination cannot be sustained. Petitioners,
in the instant cases were appointed and joined service and therefore, a
vested right accrued in their favour to be given an opportunity to defend
themselves in a regular enquiry and prove their innocence by leading
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 11 of 19

evidence.
10. The Domicile Certificates, which are in question, were issued by the
revenue authorities and there is presumption of their validity in law, unless
it is proved otherwise. Each of the certificates issued in favour of the
Petitioners were issued after due verification of the number of years they
resided in the respective States at the given addresses. There is no cogent
material on record till date which establishes that the revenue authorities did
not satisfy themselves of the proof of residences of the Petitioners and it is
apparent that the only basis of concluding that the certificates are based on
fake documents are the CBI/MHA communications.
11. Cases of the Petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Ex CT/GD Shiv Kumar v. Union of India
and Ors., W.P. (C) 15017/2023, decided on 19.08.2026, wherein pertaining
to the same examination, the Petitioner was terminated and his termination
has been set aside on grounds raised by the present Petitioners in the present
petitions.
COMMON CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
12. The orders terminating the Petitioners are legal and justified and call
for no interference. CBI had authentic information that unfair means had
been used in matter of recruitment at STC, BSF, Bengaluru and large
number of personnel including senior officers of BSF were suspected to be
involved and hence, case was registered by CBI on 12.05.2016, followed by
filing of charge sheet on 20.10.2019 against 167 persons, which includes the
Petitioners herein. Basis the communication dated 17.09.2019 received by
MHA from CBI recommending cancellation of selection and appointment of
165 candidates, show cause notices were issued to the Petitioners and there
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 12 of 19

is no gainsaying that as an employer, Respondents have the right to take
cognisance of the serious allegations and take consequent action and no
fault can be found with the decision to terminate the services of the
Petitioners.
13. Recruitment to CAPFs has to be conducted in a fair and transparent
manner and in accordance with merit as also taking into consideration
applicable reservations and State-wise allocation requirements. Where
selection is made against a particular State-quota, Domicile Certificate is an
important and material document for assessing the eligibility of a candidate
applying for appointment to Government service. Petitioners have no right
to question the decision of the Respondents to take action once it was found
during verification that unfair means and malpractices were adopted in the
selection process, bordering on corruption, particularly, relating to Domicile
Certificates furnished by the Petitioners giving false residential addresses
etc. Illustratively, Petitioner in W.P. (C) 15507/2023 in his verification roll
mentioned his place of birth as District Hapur, U.P. and Bangalore as the
State to which he belonged. In Para 4 of the same verification roll,
residential address given was 578, Indian Express Layout, Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore from 22.03.2008 to 25.02.2017 and House No. 785, AES Layout,
Attur Village, Yelahanka, New Town, Bangalore from 26.02.2017,
however, in the Domicile Certificate issued by Government of Karnataka
dated 23.02.2011, the address mentioned was House No. 578, Indian
Express Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore for the last three years.
Therefore, rightly the Domicile Certificates were found to have been
obtained on the basis of fake documents and false information.
14. It is incorrect for the Petitioners to contend that principles of natural
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 13 of 19

justice have been violated inasmuch as before taking action, show cause
notices were issued to the Petitioners setting out the allegations and calling
upon them to furnish their defence. Perusal of the show cause notices
reflects that there was sufficient and cogent material available with the
Respondents to issue the notices proposing termination. Communication
dated 14.01.2020 sent by MHA was issued on the basis of sufficient
material available with the Government pointing to the unfair means and
corrupt practices during the recruitment process. In a disciplined Force, such
adverse material cannot be ignored and once it came to light that Domicile
Certificates were not authentic, Government rightly asked the Competent
Authority in the services to take necessary action.
15. We have heard rival submissions of the parties.
16. Present petitions pertain to a challenge to termination orders issued by
the Respondents, whereby Petitioners have been removed from service and
in some cases, where appeals were filed, Appellate Orders dismissing the
appeals are also under challenge. Petitioners participated in the 2015
Examination conducted by SSC for appointment to the post of Constable
(GD) in CAPFs, NIA & SSF and Rifleman in Assam Rifles. Offers of
appointment were issued after Petitioners cleared the selection process,
whereafter the joined the respective Forces allocated. Acting on the
information received from IG (Special Ops) BSF, Bengaluru that unfair
means in the form of corruption had been used in the recruitment process at
STC, BSF, Bengaluru, CBI registered a case and upon investigation filed
charge sheet on 20.10.2019 against 167 persons including the Petitioners.
CBI also recommended cancellation of appointment of 165 candidates vide
letter dated 17.09.2019 to MHA and basis a communication dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 14 of 19

14.01.2020 from MHA, show cause notices were issued to the Petitioners
and after receiving their responses, their services were terminated.
17. At the outset, we may note that a similarly placed individual had
challenged his termination on almost identical grounds pertaining to the
same examination and vide judgment dated 19.08.2026 in Shiv Kumar
(supra), the Division Bench quashed the termination order and directed
reinstatement of the Petitioner with benefit of seniority with batchmates,
leaving the question of back wages open for the Petitioner to make
representation. The points raised by the Petitioners before us questioning
their termination are more or less the same as raised before the Division
Bench in Shiv Kumar (supra) and this is not disputed by the Respondents.
Perusal of the judgment shows that the factors that weighed with the Court
in quashing the termination order were that: (a) Domicile Certificate of the
Petitioner therein was not cancelled by the State Authority issuing the same
and Respondents never approached the authority for cancellation of either
the Domicile Certificate dated 28.02.2011 or the Residential Certificate
dated 13.05.2015 which, therefore, were genuine and authentic and held the
field and were good in the eyes of law; (b) once the competent revenue
authority, who in law, was competent to issue the Domicile Certificate,
certified that the Petitioner was residing in the State of Karnataka for more
than 10 years, it was not understood what was the adverse material with the
Respondents to draw an inference otherwise by sitting in appeal,
questioning the legality of such a certificate; and (c) Respondents are not the
Competent Authority to decide as to whether the Domicile Certificate issued
by the revenue authority of the State Government was a genuine document
or not.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 15 of 19

18. We may note that the Division Bench also observed that merely
because the Petitioner was taking education in two particular years in a
different State, that by itself would not give rights to a presumption that he
had lost the domicile of the State of Karnataka, since he was in the State of
U.P. only for temporary purpose of education and Noida was not his place
of permanent abode. This by itself according to the Court was not enough to
draw inference that the Petitioner had furnished false information for
obtaining the Domicile Certificate. The other factor which significantly
weighed with the Court was that communication dated 14.01.2020 from
MHA demonstrated that decision had already been taken to cancel the
candidature of 165 candidates and the show cause notice was only a farce
created to show that Petitioner was called upon to explain his case. Court
also noted that the show cause notice not only lacked relevant material and
the details and references to documents based on which show cause notice
was issued, but was also too vague to answer and even the reply filed by the
Petitioner was not considered or dealt with in the order of termination, leave
alone granting a personal hearing. Most significant part of the judgment is
the observation that Petitioner had joined the service after receiving an
appointment order and had successfully completed the training, by virtue of
which he had acquired a place in service and in such an eventuality,
personal hearing ought to have been granted before taking the decision to
terminate.
19. We are entirely in agreement with the Petitioners that this judgment,
which concerns a similarly placed employee, applies on all four corners to
the Petitioners herein. In the present case, we may, however, only add that
after being selected, offers of appointment were issued to the Petitioners and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 16 of 19

they had joined service in the respective Forces, allocated to them.
Therefore, in our view, their services could not have been terminated by
way of removal without holding an enquiry and giving the Petitioners a
chance to lead evidence and defend their cases. The allegations pertain to
furnishing Domicile Certificates based on allegedly fake documents and
false information and it is not understood how the Respondents came to a
conclusion that the documents were fake or information was false without
leading any evidence or proving the serious allegations. Petitioners are right
in contending that authenticity of a document cannot be questioned or
disproved by merely issuing a show cause notice and that too when in the
instant cases, as noticed by the Division Bench in Shiv Kumar (supra), with
which we entirely agree, the Domicile Certificates are issued by revenue
authorities of the respective States and till date the certificates have not been
cancelled or even questioned by the said authorities and significantly, even
the Respondents did not take any steps to seek information from the said
authorities and/or call upon them to cancel the certificates. The Domicile
Certificates in question are valid as of date and therefore, we see no reason
why the termination orders should not be quashed. We also agree with the
Division Bench in Shiv Kumar (supra) that the decision to terminate the
Petitioners was already taken before the show cause notices were issued and
this is evident from the letter dated 14.01.2020, which is extracted in
paragraph 41 of the said judgment and we extract the same hereunder for
ease of reference:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 17 of 19

”

20. Therefore, the show cause notices were issued only as a farce and a
smoke screen to create an impression that principles of natural justice were
being complied with by calling upon the Petitioners to submit their defence.
We wonder how through a show cause notice an employer can establish the
allegation of fake document or false information and how an employee can
by simply filing a reply, without leading evidence, prove his innocence.
21. We are, however, of the view that we cannot shut the Respondents
from taking action in accordance with law and to this extent, Senior Counsel
and counsels for the Petitioners fairly and candidly agree.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 18 of 19

22. For all the aforesaid reasons, impugned orders in the respective
petitions as also Appellate Orders, wherever passed, cannot be sustained and
are accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate
the Petitioners in service within ten weeks from today and accord seniority
at par with their batchmates. As for back wages, it will be open to the
Petitioners to make representations to the Respondents, which as and when
received, shall be decided in accordance with law within eight weeks from
the date of receipt of the representation. We leave it open to the
Respondents to take action, if any, in accordance with law.
23. Writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with
pending applications.


JYOTI SINGH, J


GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/YA

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:01:35
W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected matters Page 19 of 19