Delhi HC Reinstates Two Constables Removed Over Allegedly Fake Domicile Certificates, Restoring Batch Seniority As Certificates Remain Uncancelled

The petitioners were appointed as Constables (GD) in the Sashastra Seema Bal after selection in the 2015 recruitment examination. Following a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities at the BSF training centre in Bengaluru, the CBI charge-sheeted the petitioners and recommended cancellation of the appointments of 165 candidates.

The respondents issued show-cause notices alleging that the petitioners had obtained domicile certificates using fake documents or false information. After receiving their replies, the respondents removed them from service; one petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

The petitioners challenged the removal orders, relying, among other things, on the fact that the issuing State authorities had not cancelled their domicile certificates and that no regular enquiry had been held.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and fair procedure, including that serious allegations of misconduct or use of false documents resulting in removal from service must be established through an appropriate enquiry that gives the employee a meaningful opportunity to defend the case and lead evidence.

It also relied on Ex-CT/GD Shiv Kumar v. Union of India and Ex-CT/GD Vikas Singh v. Union of India, decisions concerning the same recruitment, which held that an employer cannot treat State-issued domicile certificates as invalid by its own conclusion where the issuing authorities have not cancelled them, and that a vague show-cause notice cannot substitute for a proper enquiry.

No specific statutory provision was identified as the basis for the Court’s decision.

The Court found that the domicile certificates remained valid because the competent State revenue authorities had neither cancelled nor questioned them, and the respondents had not sought verification or cancellation from those authorities.

The respondents had not identified or proved the allegedly fake documents or false information through a regular enquiry, and the petitioners had no opportunity to lead evidence in their defence.

Further, the communication indicating that cancellation of the candidates’ appointments had already been approved before the show-cause notices were issued supported the conclusion that the notices were a formality rather than a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Court considered its prior decisions on the same recruitment directly applicable.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners within ten weeks and accord them seniority at par with their batchmates. The petitioners may seek back wages by representation, to be decided in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt. The respondents remain at liberty to take action in accordance with law.