Delhi HC Orders Reinstatement With Batch Seniority For Constables Removed Over Allegedly Fake Domicile Certificates Without Regular Enquiry

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners’ removal from service could be sustained on allegations that their domicile certificates were based on fake documents or false information, without a proper inquiry and an opportunity to defend themselves.

The court held

The Court held that the impugned removal orders and any appellate orders were unsustainable and quashed them.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners within ten weeks and grant them seniority at par with their batchmates.

The petitioners may make representations for back wages, which the respondents must decide in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt.

The respondents remain at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

01Facts

The petitioners were recruited through the 2015 SSC examination for Constable (GD) posts in the CAPFs and related forces, and joined service after selection.

p. 9

Following a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities in recruitment at STC, BSF, Bengaluru, the CBI filed a charge sheet against 167 persons, including the petitioners, and recommended cancellation of the appointments of 165 candidates.

pp. 9–10

The respondents issued show-cause notices alleging that the petitioners’ domicile certificates had been obtained using fake documents or false information, and subsequently removed them from service; appeals filed by some petitioners were also rejected.

pp. 9–10, 14–15

The petitioners challenged the removal and appellate orders, contending, among other things, that the certificates remained valid, the allegations had not been independently established, and no proper inquiry had been held.

pp. 10–12

The Court considered the matters together with reference to the Division Bench decision in Ex-CT/GD Shiv Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 15017/2023, decided 19 August 2026.

pp. 15–16

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners’ removal from service could be sustained on allegations that their domicile certificates were based on fake documents or false information, without a proper inquiry and an opportunity to defend themselves.

pp. 17–18

ii.Whether the show-cause notices and subsequent removal orders complied with the requirements of natural justice, where the decision to cancel the candidates’ appointments had allegedly been taken before the notices were issued.

pp. 10, 16–18

03Law Applied

The Court applied principles of natural justice and fair procedure, holding that serious allegations of use of fake documents or false information cannot be treated as established merely by issuing a show-cause notice; an employee must have a meaningful opportunity to defend the allegations, including, in the circumstances of these cases, through an inquiry and the opportunity to lead evidence.

pp. 17–18

It also relied on Ex-CT/GD Shiv Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., which held that an employer cannot sit in appeal over a domicile certificate issued by the competent State revenue authority when that certificate has not been cancelled or questioned by the issuing authority, and that unexplained adverse conclusions cannot displace such a certificate.

pp. 15–17

The judgment does not identify a particular statutory provision as the basis for its decision.

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 8 Section 12 Section 13

04Reasoning

The Court found the petitioners’ cases materially similar to Shiv Kumar, which had set aside a termination arising from the same recruitment process.

pp. 15–17

The domicile certificates had been issued by the competent revenue authorities and had not been cancelled or questioned by those authorities; the respondents had not sought verification from, or action by, the issuing authorities.

p. 18

The Court therefore considered the respondents’ conclusion that the certificates were inauthentic insufficiently established.

p. 18

It also found that the communication of 14 January 2020 showed that cancellation of the candidates’ appointments had been approved before the show-cause notices were issued, rendering the notices a formality rather than a genuine opportunity to respond.

pp. 16–18

Given the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioners’ status as serving employees, removal without an inquiry and an opportunity to lead evidence could not stand.

p. 18