Delhi HC Reinstates 36 Ex-CAPF Constables Removed Over Allegedly Fake Domicile Certificates Without Regular Inquiry, Grants Batch Seniority

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents could remove the petitioners from service on allegations that their domicile certificates were based on fake documents or false information, without a proper inquiry and opportunity to defend themselves.

The court held

The Court held that the removal orders and any appellate orders could not be sustained 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 any further action in accordance with law.

The petitions and pending applications were disposed of on those terms.

01Facts

The petitioners were recruited through the Staff Selection Commission’s 2015 examination for Constable (GD) posts in the CAPFs and related forces, and joined service after receiving offers of appointment.

¶ 2, 16 · pp. 8–9, 14

Following a CBI investigation into alleged recruitment irregularities at STC, BSF, Bengaluru, the CBI recommended cancellation of the selection and appointments of 165 candidates, including the petitioners.

¶ 3, 16 · pp. 9, 14–15

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

¶ 4–5, 16 · pp. 9–10, 14–15

The petitioners challenged the removal and appellate orders, contending, among other things, that their certificates had not been invalidated by the issuing authorities and that no proper inquiry had been held.

¶ 6–11 · pp. 10–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents could remove the petitioners from service on allegations that their domicile certificates were based on fake documents or false information, without a proper inquiry and opportunity to defend themselves.

¶ 19–20 · pp. 16–18

ii.2. Whether the show-cause process afforded a genuine opportunity to respond, given the prior decision to cancel the candidates’ appointments and the absence of particulars or consideration of the petitioners’ replies.

¶ 18–20 · pp. 16–18

iii.3. Whether the removal and appellate orders should be quashed, and what consequential relief should follow.

¶ 21–23 · pp. 18–19

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and fair procedure, holding that serious allegations of misconduct—here, obtaining appointment through allegedly false or fake domicile documents—could not be established merely by issuing a show-cause notice; the employee must have a meaningful opportunity to defend the case, including through an inquiry where required.

¶ 19–20 · pp. 17–18

It followed the Division Bench decision in Ex-CT/GD Shiv Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 15017/2023, decided 19 August 2026, which held that an employer cannot itself treat a domicile certificate issued by a competent State revenue authority as invalid where that authority has not cancelled or questioned it, and that the employer must have an adequate evidentiary basis for its contrary conclusion.

¶ 11, 17–19 · pp. 12, 15–17

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 considered the petitioners’ cases materially identical to Shiv Kumar and adopted its reasoning.

¶ 17–19 · pp. 15–17

The domicile certificates remained valid because the issuing State authorities had not cancelled or questioned them, and the respondents had not sought verification or cancellation from those authorities.

¶ 19 · p. 17

The respondents therefore could not establish that the certificates were fake, or that the information supplied was false, merely by relying on CBI/MHA communications and issuing notices.

¶ 19–20 · pp. 17–18

Further, the MHA communication showed that cancellation had been approved before the notices were issued; the notices lacked adequate particulars, and the replies were not meaningfully addressed.

¶ 18–20 · pp. 16–18

Because the petitioners had already joined service, the Court held that their removal on these serious allegations required an inquiry and a genuine opportunity to defend themselves.

¶ 19 · p. 17