JUDGMENT Mohinder Pal, J. All these petitions are taken up together as common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge. However, LPA Bench has remanded these cases for decision afresh. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court for the following relief’s: (A) Quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 10.12.2010 as confirmed by the appellate order dated 6.5.2011 and revisional order dated 9.1.2012 and to reinstate the petitioners in service with all the consequential benefits including back wages with 12% interest. (B) If above prayer is not and cannot be granted then to substitute the order of dismissal with that of voluntary retirement. (C) Quashing and setting aside the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. (D) During the pendency and final disposal of these petitions, status quo ante 9.12.2010 may be granted. 3. Challenge in the aforementioned petitions is to the action of the Commandant of the Gujarat State Reserve Police Force Group-XII at Gandhinagar, of ordering dismissal of the petitioners from the service from the post of Armed Police Constable. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have confirmed the said orders. 4. Brief facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners were appointed on 7.2.1983 as Armed Police Constable in S.R.P. Group no. XII, Gandhinagar and they served on these posts till their dismissal from service by order dated 10.12.2010 passed by respondent no. 3. 5. A charge-sheet dated 14.5.2004 was served upon the petitioners by the respondent no. 3 for holding a departmental inquiry into the charge, inter alia, that at the time of appointment, petitioners have produced bogus school leaving certificates. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the departmental inquiry, who after inquiry found the charges proved and submitted reports accordingly. The respondent no. 3 agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and issued a second show cause notice dated 30.7.2010 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service. The petitioners filed reply to this show-cause notice, however, respondent no. 3 dismissed the petitioners vide separate order. The Appeal and Revision against these orders were also dismissed. The impugned respective orders passed against the petitioners were challenged in SCA No. 2224/2012 and allied matters. The petitioners filed reply to this show-cause notice, however, respondent no. 3 dismissed the petitioners vide separate order. The Appeal and Revision against these orders were also dismissed. The impugned respective orders passed against the petitioners were challenged in SCA No. 2224/2012 and allied matters. Learned Single Judge allowed the said Special Civil Applications and quashed and set aside respective orders of dismissal dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Commandant, S.R.P. Group XII at Gandhinagar as well as the Disciplinary Authority and directed that all the petitioners be treated to be in continuous service and were found entitled to all the consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances, revision of pay etc. 6. The original respondents- State of Gujarat preferred Letters Patent Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by way of LPA No. 729/2017 with allied matters. These LPAs came to be disposed of by order dated 26.12.2017, vide which, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside with the directions to remand these matters for afresh decision. This is how, the matters have come up before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been found guilty without any misconduct. At the time of joining, the petitioners have submitted the school leaving certificate which contained their date of birth and educational qualifications. There was no such allegation at that time that these certificates were ingenuine. It is submitted that on the basis of the say of some person, who is not permitted to be cross-examined in the departmental inquiry, a conclusion has been drawn that the petitioners have committed misconduct by not producing the original certificates or attested copies of the same. 8. Learned senior counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta has further submitted that a systematic scandal was evolved by the staff working under the respondent Commandant regarding alleged fake school leaving certificates produced at the time of appointment by the constables in the S.R.P. Group XII, and judicial notice be taken of the fact that the respondent commandant issued a memo on 12.9.2000 to all his subordinate constables stating that school leaving certificates of 62 persons (petitioners) were not available with their service books and further that, these petitioners were ineligible for appointment. Under these circumstances, the petitioners were asked to produce their original certificates or certified copies. Under these circumstances, the petitioners were asked to produce their original certificates or certified copies. It has been submitted that such a large number of school leaving certificates were found missing from the record of the employer was required to be viewed seriously, however, rather than punishing the department, petitioners have been dismissed. 9. It is further submitted that in the year 1982 about 1600 constables were recruited in eight different Groups of State Reserve Police Force, however the loss of school leaving certificates in large scale is in Group XII only, in which, the petitioners were working. It is submitted that in the said Group, almost all the Constables were from other States and there is a strong feeling that these employees are victimized for vested interests. 10. Learned counsel has also raised a point regarding Statutory provisions as contained in the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Act, 1951 and the Bombay State Police Force Rules, 1959, as applicable to the State of Gujarat. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Mohanbhai Dungarbhai Parmar vs. Y.B. Zala reported in, (1979) 1 GLR 497 in support of aforementioned submissions. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta has further submitted that as per Rules, a policeman having put in more than 30 years of service could not have been removed from service and that while imposing the penalty, the general character of the person and his past record should have been taken into consideration. It has been submitted that in the present case, all the petitioners have put in approximately 30 years of service, however, the respondents without giving benefits of past service, dismissed the petitioners on conjecture and surmises. 12. Learned counsel has finally pointed out that similarly situated one constable Shri Sardarsing Sohansing Ahir was appointed on 14.2.1983 under the same circular dated 8.3.1982, and was held guilty of the similar misconduct of producing false school leaving certificate. He was dismissed from service by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 9.10.2001. However, the same appellate authority by the order dated 12/23.10.2002 quashed the order of dismissal of this constable on the ground that he had put in 19 years of service. All the petitioners had put in more than 20 years of service, however, they have been treated differently perhaps for the reason that they were belonging to different State. 13. However, the same appellate authority by the order dated 12/23.10.2002 quashed the order of dismissal of this constable on the ground that he had put in 19 years of service. All the petitioners had put in more than 20 years of service, however, they have been treated differently perhaps for the reason that they were belonging to different State. 13. The aforementioned arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners has been controverted by the learned AGP by referring to the written statement. It has been submitted that in the advertisement inviting applications, it was specifically mentioned that a candidates should have passed VIII std. as essential requirement of the post. The petitioners have mentioned at the time of recruitment that they are VIII std. pass and have produced certificates. Their certificates were considered to be genuine and an entry was made in their service record. On the basis of anonymous complaint, a detailed departmental inquiry was initiated by the appropriate authority, and after inquiry, a systematic scandal has been found, by which, at the time of initial entry, the concerned petitioners have produced forged/fake School Leaving Certificates with respect to their age and qualification. The Disciplinary Authority has taken into account all the aforementioned circumstances and have rightly terminated the services of the petitioners. 14. Learned AGP has also pointed out that delay in initiating the action against the petitioners was not fatal as sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioners to defend the allegations. Similarly, it has been argued that the allegation in respect of malafides cannot be looked into in absence of any specific averments in this regard. Finally, it has been argued that dismissal is not on the ground that the petitioners have not produce the certificates, however, on the ground that they have produced the false/forged/fake school leaving certificates. 15. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. 16. The complaint on the basis of which inquiry has proceeded is anonymous. In pursuance to the advertisement for filing up approximately 1600 posts of constables, the petitioners have approached the respondents authority. They submitted applications along with the necessary documents including School Leaving Certificates as well as birth certificates. At the time of selection, the original certificates of qualification as well as date of birth were taken by the respondents. In pursuance to the advertisement for filing up approximately 1600 posts of constables, the petitioners have approached the respondents authority. They submitted applications along with the necessary documents including School Leaving Certificates as well as birth certificates. At the time of selection, the original certificates of qualification as well as date of birth were taken by the respondents. Out of these 1600 constables, the issue seems to have been raised in Group XII. It is not in dispute that officials of the respondents who were required to maintain record of the petitioners have come out with a plea that, they have lost the certificates. These certificates were produced by the petitioners in the year 1983 and were part of service record. Surprisingly, all these petitioners are residents of other States. No such suspicion has been raised regarding appointments of remaining 1400- 1500 constables who are stated to be from the State of Gujarat. On one hand, these certificates are claimed to have been lost by the Employer and coincidently, at that very moment, an anonymous application is received by the employer that let these certificates be again asked from the concerned constables. The authority seems to have not taken into consideration the fact that these constables have come from other States and had left their homes 20/30 years ago. Most of these constables seem to be from the States of U.P. and Bihar etc. It is known fact that schools and village panchayats of these States are not well equipped to maintain the record in a proper way. This is particularly so when places where such records are kept gets generally washed away during floods and rains. The respondents have asked the petitioners to produce record which might be more than 40 years old. If old service record of the petitioners could not be maintained by State of Gujarat for 20/30 years, how do one expect undeveloped States like U.P. and Bihar could maintain such records. 17. The inquiry officer was required to conduct inquiry at the Head Quarter of the respondents, however, he seems to have conducted ex-parte inquiry at the places where schools of these constables were situated. The petitioners have not been afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who have been examined by the respondents. In some of the cases, even the record is found correct, however, services of these petitioners are terminated. 18. The petitioners have not been afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who have been examined by the respondents. In some of the cases, even the record is found correct, however, services of these petitioners are terminated. 18. The appellate authority seems to have adopted different yard-sticks while dealing with the different people for the same allegations. As pointed out by the learned senior counsel, one constable namely Sardarsing Sohansing Ahir, who was recruited with the petitioners and have put in 19 years of service. The appellate authority quashed and set aside the order of dismissal for the reasons that he has put in 19 years of service. The case of the petitioners is even more stronger because at the time of dismissal, these petitioners have put in 27-28 years of service. 19. Original certificates produced by the petitioners are stated to have been lost by the respondents. The petitioners have been asked to produce duplicate certificates or certified copies of the original certificates which have been lost. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be asked to create evidence against themselves. Action of the respondents is also against the Bombay Police Manual. The respondents were required to follow the Bombay Police Manual which is still a good law even after publication of Gujarat Police Manual which does not contain any provision about the disciplinary action against S.R.P. Personnels. Besides, Rule 47(4) of the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959, makes the Bombay Police Manual applicable to the State Reserve Police Force. 20. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has agreed in principle that, in case, the main prayer of the petitioners for reinstatement cannot be granted, then substitute the order of dismissal with voluntary retirement. 21. Admittedly, all the petitioners have spent best part of their life in service of the respondents. They have worked for about 30 years when they have been dismissed from service. By now, most of them might have reached to the age of superannuation and might have found alternative job though such jobs are difficult to get at fag end of the life. However, keeping in view the circumstances of these cases, the order of dismissal can be substituted with the order of voluntary retirement. 22. As a result of foregoing discussions, these petitions are partly allowed. However, keeping in view the circumstances of these cases, the order of dismissal can be substituted with the order of voluntary retirement. 22. As a result of foregoing discussions, these petitions are partly allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be treated as voluntary retired in place of dismissal. The petitioners will be treated to have retired from service. They will be entitled to pension and other pensionary benefits from that date, but they will not be paid any arrears for the aforementioned period i.e. from the date of retirement till the decision by this Court. However, they will be entitled to full pension after this date i.e. decision of this Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in all these petitions.