R. C. Lahoti ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was enrolled as a constable in CRPF has been directed to be removed from service w. e. f. 25. 11. 1990 under Rule 27 (a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The petitioner was charged with having committed a misconduct by filing Certificate No. 1844 dated 22. 3. 1988 while seeking employment showing his domicile in Delhi which certificate was found to be bogus on an enquiry made by the respondent. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was not aware of the certificate being bogus. He had gone to Tis Hazari where the authority competent to issue domicile certificate is situated. There he met a person who offered to render his services to him and have the certificate issued from the Competent Authority. The petitioner made application, signed the requisite papers and thereupon the person who had met him delivered a certificate to him. The certificate was admittedly Filed with the application seeking the employment. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the respondents, it is not relevant whether it was or was not in the knowledge of the petitioner that the certificate was bogus. It is now an admitted fact that the certificate was bogus. The petitioner was guilty of having committed a misconduct and therefore was rightly removed from service. ( 4 ) IT is pertinent to note the finding contained in the report of the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner. To quote therefrom : "we find from the documentary evidence that the Certificate No. 1844 dated 22. 3. 1988 is a bogus certificate but there is sufficient scope of doubt as to whether delinquent Ct. Shiv Charan knew the certificate to be bogus one. This doubt is raised from the fact that the content of certification is substantially correct. Even though the form of certificate may be false but it is established as true that the delinquent did indeed reside in Delhi between 1982 to 1988. Under the circumstances it is possible to believe that the delinquent himself was cheated by some false pretender of certificate issuing authority. The format of the certificate and stamp and signature lend credence to the belief that some office staff may have organised racket of issuing bogus certificate to the unsuspecting members of public. Thus the charge against Ct. Under the circumstances it is possible to believe that the delinquent himself was cheated by some false pretender of certificate issuing authority. The format of the certificate and stamp and signature lend credence to the belief that some office staff may have organised racket of issuing bogus certificate to the unsuspecting members of public. Thus the charge against Ct. Shiv Charan would have been grave, had he not been actually a resident of Delhi. In the instant case the situation is different and in fact it can be said that he is guilty of negligence for not taking good care in procuring the domicile certificate from authority concerned. Since domicile of Delhi was an essential condition of recruitment it was imperative upon the delinquent to produce a valid domicile certificate and by failing to produce a valid domicile certificate he was failed to meet an essential condition of recruitment. " ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the respondent the purpose of insisting on domicile certificate from a person seeking an entry in CRPF is that the CRPF is an all India force and great care is taken to ensure proper representation of men from all regions of the country according to certain norms laid down by the Govt. of India and Force Headquarter. Keeping this in view the recruitment parties are sent to different regions separately and candidates are asked to produce domicile certificate to prevent candidates of other regions taking undue advantage. ( 6 ) WITH the petition, the petitioner has filed yet another domicile certificate (Annexure-A) issued by the Competent Authority, the genuineness whereof is not in dispute, which shows the petitioner s domicile in Delhi. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner s residence in Delhi between 1982-88 is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that residence of three years in Delhi prior to the year 1988 would have entitled the petitioner to issuance of domicile certificate. In short, the factum of the petitioner having domicile in Delhi in the year 1988 is not in dispute. He has been held guilty of misconduct and removed from service solely because he had produced a domicile certificate which was found on an enquiry to be bogus. ( 7 ) IN the enquiry itself the defence of the petitioner has been found to be correct. He has been held guilty of misconduct and removed from service solely because he had produced a domicile certificate which was found on an enquiry to be bogus. ( 7 ) IN the enquiry itself the defence of the petitioner has been found to be correct. The enquiry officer has found that the factum of the certificate being bogus may not have been in the knowledge of the petitioner. The possibility of the petitioner himself having been cheated cannot be ruled out. ( 8 ) AT one stage of the proceedings this Court had directed the Delhi Administration through the Chief Secretary to carry out a thorough investigation if any racket was operating in Tis Hazari in the matter of issuance of bogus domicile certificates. Nothing has come out of that order for enquiry. In any case, reverting to the case before us we fail to appreciate how on the finding recorded in the departmental enquiry the petitioner could have been held guilty of misconduct. ( 9 ) THOUGH the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that on the allegation of the petitioner having produced a bogus domicile certificate in the process of securing employment he could not have been charged with nor found guilty of having committed a misconduct whilst being a member of the Force . Therefore the charge cannot be sustained even prima facie. We do not propose to enter into the worth of that contention inasmuch as if the petitioner could be held guilty of having intentionally or knowingly produced a bogus certificate then he would have been liable for cancellation of appointment if not for removal from employment. Be that as it may, inasmuch as we have found the petitioner not guilty of any misconduct and as it is not disputed that the petitioner did have domicile in Delhi at the time of seeking employment we do not think that the respondents were justified in directing the removal of the petitioner from service. It would have been entirely different if the petitioner though not domicile in Delhi yet would have filed a certificate of domicile in Delhi. ( 10 ) FOR the forgoing reasons the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29. 11. 1990 (Annexure B), order dated 30. 4. It would have been entirely different if the petitioner though not domicile in Delhi yet would have filed a certificate of domicile in Delhi. ( 10 ) FOR the forgoing reasons the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29. 11. 1990 (Annexure B), order dated 30. 4. 92, rejecting the appeal and order of January, 1993 dismissing the review petition, (Annexure-G), are all hereby set aside and directed to be quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. The petitioner has not sought for award of back wages/emoluments of service and we also do not consider it appropriate to award the same. No order as to cost.