MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING for QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26. 3. 2003 whereby THE RESPONDENTS HAVE TERMINATED THE SERVICES OF the PETITIONER. ( 2 ) THE PETITIONER WAS ENROLLED AS A CONSTABLE WITH THE respondent / CRPF ON 8. 7. 2000. WHILE HE WAS WORKING AS constable, A CHARGE-SHEET WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY memorandum IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2002. THE CHARGE- sheet WHICH WAS DRAWN UP AGAINST THE PETITIONER WAS AS follows: "that THE SAID NO.-0052-63419 CT/gd - UDAI SHANKAR RAM OF 115 B. N. C. R. P. F. , WHILE FUNCTIONING AS CT/gd IN C. R. P. F. COMMITTED AN ACT OF MISCONDUCT IN HIS CAPACITY AS A member OF THE FORCE U/s-11 (1) OF C. R. P. F. ACT 1949, IN that HE WAS ENROLLED AS CONSTABLE ON DATED 8. 7. 2000 IN the RESERVED CASTE QUOTA OF SCHEDULED TRIBE (BHIKSA caste ). THE CASTE CERTIFICATE MEMO NO.-1378 DATED 9. 4. 97 (SCHEDULE TRIBE) PRODUCED BY THE INDIVIDUAL DURING enrollment, WHICH WAS ISSUED BY TEHSILDAR GAZIPUR, ON verification FROM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GAZIPUR, IT WAS proved THAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY tehsildar, GAZIPUR. THUS BEING A MEMBER OF THE disciplined FORCE, HE ACTED IN CONTRARY TO RULES WHICH IS an OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER RULE - 27 OF C. R. P. F. , RULE- 1955 AND UNDER CCS (CCA) RULE-14. " ( 3 ) ALONG WITH THE AFORESAID ARTICLE OF CHARGE, SCHEDULE OF imputation OF MISCONDUCT WAS ALSO ENCLOSED. IT IS disclosed FROM THE AFORESAID CHARGE AND THE DETAILS OF the IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT THAT THE PETITIONER AT THE time OF HIS ENROLMENT AS A CONSTABLE SUBMITTED A CASTE certificate SHOWING HIM AS SCHEDULED TRIBE (BHIKSHA caste) CANDIDATE AND ON THE BASIS OF AND RELYING ON THE said CASTE CERTIFICATE, HE WAS ENROLLED AS THE CONSTABLE. SUBSEQUENTLY, HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF VERIFICATION IT WAS found THAT THE AFORESAID CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED BY the AUTHORITY, NAMELY, THE TEHSILDAR, GAZIPUR. THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID ALLEGATION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST the PETITIONER THAT HE HAD GOT HIMSELF ENROLLED IN THE force BY SUBMITTING A FABRICATED DOCUMENT. THE petitioner, AFTER RECEIPT OF THE AFORESAID MEMORANDUM OF charge, ASKED FOR SOME TIME TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF the CERTIFICATE. THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID ALLEGATION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST the PETITIONER THAT HE HAD GOT HIMSELF ENROLLED IN THE force BY SUBMITTING A FABRICATED DOCUMENT. THE petitioner, AFTER RECEIPT OF THE AFORESAID MEMORANDUM OF charge, ASKED FOR SOME TIME TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF the CERTIFICATE. ( 4 ) THE RESPONDENTS APPOINTED THE INQUIRY OFFICER TO inquire INTO THE CHARGE LEVELED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THE PETITIONER WAS THEREAFTER ASKED BY THE INQUIRY officer DURING THE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER HE IS ADMITTING the CHARGE OR NOT. THE PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO THE charge. IT ALSO TRANSPIRES FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE inquiry OFFICER RECORDED THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION witness AND TOOK INTO HIS CUSTODY DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY the PROSECUTION AND THEREAFTER HE SUBMITTED HIS REPORT finding THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF THE CHARGE. THE disciplinary AUTHORITY, BEFORE WHOM THE AFORESAID REPORT was PLACED, CONSIDERED THE SAID REPORT AND THEREAFTER passed AN ORDER TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THE petitioner. ( 5 ) IT IS, HOWEVER, TO BE NOTICED AT THIS STAGE THAT THE petitioner SUBMITTED A LETTER BEFORE THE INQUIRY OFFICER wherein HE ADMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE scheduled TRIBE. ADMITTEDLY, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT HAVE been ENROLLED AS CONSTABLE AGAINST THE SCHEDULED TRIBE quota AS HE BELONGS TO THE SCHEDULED CASTE. HE, HOWEVER, took UP THE PLEA THAT HE WAS NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE caste CERTIFICATE AND, THEREFORE, HE SHOULD BE GIVEN A chance TO RECTIFY HIMSELF. AFTER THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF termination WAS PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, THE petitioner SUBMITTED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE DIRECTOR general WHEREIN ALSO HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT BELONG TO the SCHEDULED TRIBE BUT IS A SCHEDULED CASTE. HE ALSO admitted THAT HE HAD DONE A WRONG AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS pleaded GUILTY. HE, HOWEVER, SOUGHT TO BE EXCUSED AS HE was A VICTIM OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE AFORESAID representation OF THE PETITIONER WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE competent AUTHORITY AND THE SAME WAS INTIMATED TO THE petitioner BY OFFICE ORDER DATED 4. 1. 2004. THEREAFTER the PRESENT PETITION WAS FILED SEEKING FOR QUASHING AND setting ASIDE OF THE ORDER OF TERMINATION AS ALSO THE order PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE AFORESAID representation OF THE PETITIONER WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE competent AUTHORITY AND THE SAME WAS INTIMATED TO THE petitioner BY OFFICE ORDER DATED 4. 1. 2004. THEREAFTER the PRESENT PETITION WAS FILED SEEKING FOR QUASHING AND setting ASIDE OF THE ORDER OF TERMINATION AS ALSO THE order PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ( 6 ) COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER HAS TAKEN UP A plea BEFORE THIS COURT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IS illegal AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE PETITIONER WAS not GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN THE inquiry PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INQUIRY OFFICER. IT IS also SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH the ASSISTANCE AS IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE UNDER RULE 14 OF the CCS (CCA) RULE AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS REQUIRED to BE SET ASIDE AND QUASHED. IT WAS ALSO SOUGHT TO BE submitted THAT THE PROVISION OF RULE 11 IS NOT APPLICABLE to THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND, therefore, RESPONDENT NO. 4 ACTED ILLEGALLY AND WITHOUT jurisdiction IN EXERCISING THE POWER UNDER SECTION 11. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENTS, HOWEVER, HAS DRAWN our ATTENTION TO THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER IN the PRESENT PETITION AND SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO WHISPER in THE PETITION REGARDING VIOLATION OF ANY PRINCIPLE OF natural JUSTICE DURING THE INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS NOR IS there IS ANY ALLEGATION IN THE PETITION THAT THE petitioner EVER ASKED FOR ASSISTANCE AND THE SAME WAS denied TO HIM. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER HAS also SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY the DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IN FRAMING THE CHARGE AND, therefore, THE CHARGE ITSELF IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. ANOTHER SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IS that SECTION 11 OF THE ACT DOES NOT ENVISAGE THAT AN order OF TERMINATION OR ORDER OF DISMISSAL COULD BE passed IN EXERCISE OF THE SAID POWER AS THE SAID SECTION deals WITH ONLY MINOR PUNISHMENTS. ( 7 ) WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL appearing FOR THE PARTIES. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE MAY appropriately REFER TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN RAM bihari SHUKLA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2002 IV AD (DELHI) 317 AND ALSO THE DIVISION BENCH decision OF THIS COURT IN CW NO. 4329/2000 DECIDED ON 6. 1. 2003. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE MAY appropriately REFER TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN RAM bihari SHUKLA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2002 IV AD (DELHI) 317 AND ALSO THE DIVISION BENCH decision OF THIS COURT IN CW NO. 4329/2000 DECIDED ON 6. 1. 2003. IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS IT HAS BEEN HELD BY this COURT THAT PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE COULD be PASSED UNDER SECTION 11. IT WAS HELD IN THE SAID decision THAT A PROPER READING OF SECTIONS 9, 10 AND 11 would CLEARLY SHOW THAT A DELINQUENT PERSON CAN BE punished WITH DISMISSAL EVEN IF HE HAS NOT BEEN prosecuted FOR AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 9 AND 10 OF THE act. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED opinion THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS PASSED BY THE respondent NO. 4 HEREIN COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE commandant IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE CRPF ACT. ( 8 ) SO FAR THE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING VIOLATION OF THE principles OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND NOT PROVIDING assistance ARE CONCERNED, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE petition. OUR ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE APPEAL, which WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE authority. IN THE SAID APPEAL ALSO NO SUCH ALLEGATION has BEEN RAISED BY THE PETITIONER. IN THE PRESENT petition ALSO NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATION REGARDING VIOLATION of THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE NOR REGARDING assistance IS SPECIFICALLY RAISED. THE PETITIONER HAS admittedly PRODUCED A FABRICATED DOCUMENT BEFORE THE authority SEEKING FOR HIS ENROLMENT IN THE FORCE. A specific CHARGE IS FRAMED UPON INITIATION OF A departmental PROCEEDING. THE SAID CHARGE IS BASED ON records AND THE CHARGE WAS ADMITTED BY THE PETITIONER before THE INQUIRY OFFICER AND ALSO BEFORE THE APPELLATE authority. THE CHARGE, THEREFORE, WHICH WAS DRAWN UP against THE PETITIONER IS PROVED ON THE ADMISSION OF THE petitioner HIMSELF. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE grounds WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED NOW REGARDING NOT providing ASSISTANCE AND REGARDING VIOLATION OF THE principles OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WHICH ARE RAISED FOR THE first TIME AT THE STAGE OF ARGUMENTS, CANNOT BE entertained. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE grounds WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED NOW REGARDING NOT providing ASSISTANCE AND REGARDING VIOLATION OF THE principles OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WHICH ARE RAISED FOR THE first TIME AT THE STAGE OF ARGUMENTS, CANNOT BE entertained. IN THIS CONNECTION WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE decision OF RAM BIHARI SHUKLA (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS held BY THIS COURT THAT CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE DO not PROVIDE FOR ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING assistance OF A LAWYER TO A DELINQUENT CENTRAL RESERVE police FORCE PERSONNEL IN THE ENQUIRY. THE SUBMISSION regarding NON APPLICATION OF MIND IN FRAMING CHARGE IS also VAGUE AND CONTRARY TO RECORDS. IN ANY VIEW OF THE matter, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS PETITION. THE PETITION stands DISMISSED.