Willful suppression of educational eligibility and misrepresentation of qualifications at the time of recruitment warrants removal from service.

The applicant was appointed as a "Lascar" in the 10 Wing Air Force, Jorhat, on April 10, 2012

At the time of application, he declared his educational qualification as "10+2" based on a Bachelor Preparatory Programme (BPP) certificate from IGNOU

Upon subsequent verification in 2015, IGNOU clarified that the BPP is not equivalent to Matriculation (10th) or Intermediate (10+2)

Although the applicant later obtained a Pravesika Examination certificate (equivalent to Matriculation) in 2015, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

A Board of Inquiry found the charges of misrepresentation proved, leading to the applicant's "Removal from Service" via order dated July 9, 2019

The applicant challenged this removal, alleging non-supply of the inquiry report and citing his subsequent qualification

1. Whether the penalty of removal from service was justified given the applicant's claim of non-supply of the inquiry report and the subsequent acquisition of a valid qualification

2. Whether the applicant was eligible for the post at the time of the initial recruitment process

The Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, regarding the procedure for imposing major penalties

It adhered to the established legal principle that the eligibility and qualifications of a candidate for a public post must be determined as of the last date for submission of the application form

Furthermore, the court looked to the terms of the appointment letter, which stipulated that furnishing false information or suppressing material facts would lead to removal from service

The Tribunal found that the advertisement for the post of Lascar explicitly required "Matriculation or equivalent pass"

The applicant, knowing he did not hold such a qualification, intentionally misled the authorities by marking his qualification as 10+2

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's defense regarding the 2015 Sanskrit Board certificate, reasoning that eligibility cannot be acquired retrospectively; he was unqualified during the three years following his initial appointment

Addressing the procedural claim, the Tribunal noted the respondents' evidence that the inquiry report had indeed been handed over and acknowledged by the applicant on November 8, 2018

The court concluded that since the applicant engaged in concealment of facts to secure employment, the disciplinary action was procedurally and substantively sound

The Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed, upholding the Penalty Order dated July 9, 2019, and the Memorandum dated February 22, 2018