Delhi HC Reinstates Two Constables Removed Over Allegedly Fake Domicile Certificates, Finding Them Valid And Show-Cause Notices A “Farce”

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Petitioners’ removal from service could stand where the Respondents alleged that their domicile certificates were based on fake documents or false information, but the certificates had not been cancelled or questioned by the issuing authorities and no regular enquiry had been held.

The court held

The Court held that the removal 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.

01Facts

The Petitioners were selected in the 2015 SSC recruitment for Constable (GD) posts, appointed and joined the Sashastra Seema Bal.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 6–9

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

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 6–9

The Respondents issued show-cause notices alleging that the Petitioners had obtained domicile certificates using fake documents or false information. After considering their replies, the Respondents removed them from service; one Petitioner’s appeal was rejected.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 6–9

The Petitioners challenged the removal orders, contending, among other things, that their certificates remained valid, no proper enquiry had been held, and the decision to terminate had preceded the show-cause notices.

pp. 3–6 · ¶ 10–15

The Court considered earlier decisions concerning the same recruitment and similar termination orders.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 21–22

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Petitioners’ removal from service could stand where the Respondents alleged that their domicile certificates were based on fake documents or false information, but the certificates had not been cancelled or questioned by the issuing authorities and no regular enquiry had been held.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 23–24

ii.2. Whether the show-cause process afforded a genuine opportunity to respond, given the prior decision to cancel the candidates’ appointments and the alleged deficiencies in the notices and consideration of the replies.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 22–24

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and fair procedure, holding in the circumstances of these cases that serious allegations of use of fake documents or false information could not be established merely through a show-cause notice and written reply, without a proper enquiry and an effective opportunity to defend.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 23–24

It also relied on Ex-CT/GD Shiv Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 15017/2023, and Ex-CT/GD Vikas Singh v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 15507/2026, which had set aside similar terminations involving the same examination.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 21–22

Those decisions treated unrevoked domicile certificates issued by competent State revenue authorities as remaining valid unless set aside, and found that the employer could not simply disregard them without establishing a basis to do so.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 21–22

The Court left open the Respondents’ ability to take action in accordance with law.

p. 12 · ¶ 25

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 cases materially indistinguishable from Shiv Kumar and Vikas Singh.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 23

The domicile certificates had not been cancelled or questioned by the issuing authorities, and the Respondents had not sought information from those authorities or taken steps to have the certificates set aside.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 23

Nor had the Respondents held a regular enquiry to prove that the certificates were based on fake documents or false information.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 23–24

The Court also considered the MHA communication of 14 January 2020, which indicated that cancellation of the candidates’ appointments had already been approved before the show-cause notices were issued.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 22–24

In that context, the notices did not provide a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegations and were characterised as a “farce” and “smoke screen”.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 22–24