Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 849 (RAJ)

Ex-ct/ftr Rupak Kumar v. Union Of India

2019-03-14

G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The charge against the appellant was of having produced a forged certificate issued by the Controller of Examination NTC. The appointment was to the post of Constable Fitter. The certificate when sent for verification to the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades was found to be forged. Writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 01.02.2019. 3. The first contention advanced in the appeal is that since the appellant was appointed as a Constable Fitter the only requirement was that he should be Class-X pass, a contention which we note and reject for the reason the appellant was appointed as Constable Fitter and not a Constable General Duty. 4. Second contention advanced is that in S.B. CWP No. 13143/2016 the same Single Judge issued notice to the respondent. The order in S.B. CWP No. 13143/2016 issuing notice reads as under:- "One of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was required to have minimum qualification of 10th class pass alone and was not required to have ITI certificate for the post of Constable and merely because the certificate obtained by the petitioner was from an unrecognized institution, the petitioner could not have been removed from service. His further submission is that since the enquiry was conducted under Section 18-A of the CRPF Act, 1949, only minor punishment could have been awarded and removal order was unjustified. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was only appointed as a Fitter and the appointment was on the basis of the petitioner having ITI certificate/diploma which was subsequently found to have been obtained from an unrecognized institution. Learned counsel for the respondents shall keep ready copy of the advertisement, application form and appointment order of the petitioner ready for perusal of this Court on the next date. List again on 06/02/2019." 5. Suffice it to state in the instant case the certificate produced by the appellant has been found to be forged. 6. The third contention advanced is that as per Rule 11 of the CRPF Rules 1955, penalty of dismissal could not have been inflicted. 7. Suffice it to state it is a case of appointment on the basis of a forged certificate. 6. The third contention advanced is that as per Rule 11 of the CRPF Rules 1955, penalty of dismissal could not have been inflicted. 7. Suffice it to state it is a case of appointment on the basis of a forged certificate. A person who takes appointment on the basis of a forged certificate would be liable to have his very appointment cancelled. 8. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.