Reinstatement must be reconsidered after verifying an official clarification disproving the alleged forged caste certificate.

The appellant was selected and appointed as a Constable (General Duty) in the CISF on 15 August 2009 under the OBC category after submitting, inter alia, an OBC caste certificate. She completed basic training and was posted at CISF Unit, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

During verification, the concerned authority initially reported that the caste certificate dated 24 October 2008 was not traceable in the official records. On that basis, her services were terminated on 2 June 2011 under Rule 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001.

The appellant subsequently asserted that the discrepancy resulted from a typographical error in the certificate number and challenged the termination. She also lodged a complaint/FIR against advocates or agents alleging cheating and preparation of forged documents.

A subsequent letter dated 17 June 2011 from the Caste Scrutiny Branch, Collector, Bhopal, stated that the earlier conclusion was erroneous and that the appellant was in fact a member of the OBC community.

Her writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of fraudulent conduct. In the intra-Court appeal, the Division Bench found that the authenticity of the subsequent letter had not been verified.

1. Whether the appellant’s termination during probation under Rule 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001 was legally sustainable on the basis of the initial verification report regarding her OBC certificate, without a regular departmental enquiry or separate opportunity of hearing?

2. Whether the letter dated 17 June 2011 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Branch, Collector, Bhopal, genuinely established that the appellant’s OBC certificate was valid and therefore required reconsideration of her termination and possible reinstatement?

The Court primarily applied Rule 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Under Rule 26(4), during probation, the appointing authority may terminate the services of a member of the Force for furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment, by giving one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu thereof, without assigning reasons.

Rule 26(1) further empowers the Inspector General to reopen a termination order concerning a probationer and, after such enquiry as considered appropriate, confirm, withdraw, or otherwise modify the action taken.

The Court also applied the principle that an administrative decision founded on an allegedly forged or invalid certificate must be assessed in light of the competent authority’s subsequent verification of the certificate’s authenticity.

The Court held that Rule 26 permitted termination during probation for furnishing false or incorrect information and, consequently, a regular departmental enquiry or detailed reasons were not necessarily required where the rule was properly invoked.

The initial report from the Collector, Bhopal, indicated that the certificate was not issued by the competent office or recorded in its register, which supported the respondents’ action at the time of termination.

However, the later letter dated 17 June 2011 stated that the earlier finding had resulted from an incorrect certificate number and that the appellant belonged to the OBC community.

Since the learned Single Judge had treated the appellant’s conduct as fraudulent without verifying the authenticity and veracity of this later official communication, the Division Bench considered that the appellant’s case required reconsideration.

The respondents were the appropriate authorities to verify the letter and assess the appellant’s present suitability for reinstatement.

The respondents were directed to verify the authenticity of the letter dated 17 June 2011 issued by the Collector, Bhopal, and, if found genuine and correct, to consider the appellant’s reinstatement in accordance with law.

The exercise was directed to be completed within two months from the date on which information was furnished by the Collector, Bhopal.

Even if reinstatement was granted, the appellant was held not entitled to back wages.