Ex-Ct/Gd Dheerendra Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~185 and 187
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision:02 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010528972026
+ W.P.(C) 16249/2026
EX-CT/GD DHEERENDRA SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Survesh Singh and Mr. Durgesh
Kumar Gupta, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Dubey, SPC.
187
# CNR No. DLHC010529102026
+ W.P.(C) 16262/2026
EX CT GD RISHI KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Survesh Singh and Mr. Durgesh
Kumar Gupta, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Dubey, SPC.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 76111/2026 in W.P.(C) 16249/2026
CM APPL. 76139/2026 in W.P.(C) 16262/2026 (Exemptions)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 1 of 12

2. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 and W.P.(C) 16262/2026
3. These writ petitions have been filed by the respective Petitioners
challenging their termination from service by way of removal. Since
common legal issues arise in these petitions, they were heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Neeraj Dubey, learned SPC accepts notice on behalf of
Respondents.
6. 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
(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 and Petitioner in W.P. (C) 16249/2026 as also Petitioner in
W.P. (C) 16262/2026 joined SSB.
7. 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,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 2 of 12

including the Petitioners and also recommended cancellation of selection
and consequent appointment of 165 candidates.
8. 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 Authorities which
issued the Domicile Certificates.
9. 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. Appeal
filed by Petitioner in W.P. (C) 16262/2026 was rejected.
COMMON CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS
10. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 3 of 12

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.
11. 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
conclusion.
12. 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.
13. Petitioners are regularly appointed employees and their services have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 4 of 12

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 evidence.
14. 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.
15. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 5 of 12

petitions.
COMMON CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
16. 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
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.
17. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 6 of 12

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.
18. It is incorrect for the Petitioners to contend that principles of natural
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.
19. We have heard rival submissions of the parties.
20. Present petitions pertain to a challenge to termination orders issued by
the Respondents, whereby Petitioners have been removed from service and
appeal filed by the Petitioner in W.P. (C) 16262/2026 has been dismissed.
Petitioners participated in the 2015 Examination conducted by SSC for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 7 of 12

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 14.01.2020 from MHA, show cause notices
were issued to the Petitioners and after receiving their responses, their
services were terminated.
21. 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) as also before us in a batch of petitions
decided vide common judgment dated 29.10.2026 in Ex CT/GD Vikas
Singh v. Union of India and Others in W.P. (C) 15507/2026. This fact is
not disputed by the Respondents. Perusal of the judgments show that the
factors that weighed with both the Benches in quashing the termination
orders were that: (a) Domicile Certificates of the Petitioners therein were not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 8 of 12

cancelled by the State Authorities issuing the same and Respondents never
approached the concerned authorities for cancellation and therefore, these
certificates were till date valid, genuine and authentic and held the field and
were good in the eyes of law; (b) once the competent revenue authorities,
who in law, were competent to issue the Domicile Certificates, certified that
the Petitioners were residing in the respective States for requisite number of
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 certificates; (c) Respondents are not the Competent
Authority to decide as to whether the Domicile Certificates issued by the
revenue authorities of the respective State Governments were genuine
documents or not; and (d) no regular enquiry was initiated by the
Respondents before imposing the harsh penalty of removal from service as
also that the show cause notices were a mere farce.
22. We may note that the Division Bench in Shiv Kumar (supra) also
observed that merely because the Petitioner was taking education in two
particular years in a different State, that by itself would not give rise to a
presumption that he 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 9 of 12

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.
23. We are entirely in agreement with the Petitioners that these
judgments, which pertain to similarly placed individuals, apply on all four
corners to the Petitioners herein and this fact is fairly not disputed by the
Respondents. It is equally undisputed that without holding regular enquiries,
action has been taken by the Respondents and resultantly, no opportunity
has been given to the Petitioners to lead evidence and prove their innocence,
as alleged. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 10 of 12

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:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 11 of 12

24. 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 response.
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.
25. We are, however, of the view that we cannot shut the Respondents
from taking action in accordance with law and to this extent, counsels for
the Petitioners fairly and candidly agree.
26. For all the aforesaid reasons, impugned orders in the respective
petitions 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 representations.
We leave it open to the Respondents to take action, if any, in accordance
with law.
27. Writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JYOTI SINGH, J


GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/ bh

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:09.11.2026
17:59:23
W.P.(C) 16249/2026 & connected matter Page 12 of 12