JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for quashing of the Office Order dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-7) issued by Commandant-106 Battalion, whereby and whereunder, he has been removed from the service from the date of issuance of impugned order. Further, prayer has been made for quashing of Office Order No.R13-1/2018-19/Stha.3 dated 20.02.2019 as well as Office Order No.R-13-2/2019-Ras-Administration-1 dated 09.01.2020, whereby and where under the order of dismissal has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority respectively. Petitioner has also prayed that after quashment of the aforesaid orders, a direction be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable on 24.07.2004 in Group Centre, Muffarpur (Bihar). After basic training, he was posted in CRPF-44 Battalion, Lauk Tauk (Manipur). The Petitioner was transferred in the Year 2020 to CRPF-26 Battalion, Chas (Bokaro). In the service career, he was transferred to several places and lastly he was transferred to CRPF-106 Battalion (RAF), Sunder Nagar, Jamshedpur on 12.07.2016. It is specific case of the petitioner that one FIR being Andal P.S.Case No. 195 of 2016 dated 16.07.2016 was lodged by one Jai Prakash Singh against five persons including Upendra Kumar Singh i.e. the petitioner under sections 363,365,366,368 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that his daughter namely Manisha Kumari Singh has been kidnapped on 04.06.2016 by the accused persons. After investigation, the police has submitted the final form against the petitioner as ‘final report as mistake of fact’ vide Final Report No. 31/2016 dated 31.08.2016. In the meanwhile, said Jai Prakash Singh submitted a complaint before the Commandant 106, Battalion, RAF, Sunder Nagar, Jamshedpur alleging therein the actual name of the petitioner is Arun Kumar Singh who has served the respondent-CRPF by using the certificate of his elder brother Upendra Kumar. Pursuant to same, the respondents issued a show cause to the petitioner vide Letter dated 31.12.2016, which was duly replied by the petitioner. However, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in terms of Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 25.09.2018 before the Inquiry Officer and has denied the charges leveled against him. However, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in terms of Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 25.09.2018 before the Inquiry Officer and has denied the charges leveled against him. In the Departmental inquiry, the petitioner and several witnesses have been examined and Inquiry Officer submitted his final report and held that charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Commandant, 106 Batallion RAF/CRPF, Jamshedpur sought a report from the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara regarding genuineness of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, an enquiry was conducted by the Police Inspector, Sadar, Circle, Ara and held that petitioner is innocent and genuine person and there is no any complaint registered in the police record and same was also forwarded to the Commandant, 106 Battalion, RAF/CRPF, Jamshedpur. However, the Commandant, 106 Bn. RAF/CRPF, Jamshedpur vide impugned order dated 19.11.2018 contained in Office Order No. P.Aath-01/2018-106 removed the petitioner from service without considering the report of Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara on the ground that name of the petitioner’s father as recorded in the service book of the petitioner is different from inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara as in the inquiry report, the name of the Petitioner’s father is mentioned as ‘Ram Daroga Singh’ where as in the service book, it is mentioned as ‘Daroga Singh’. Thereafter, the petitioner’s wife filed an RTI before the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara about the correct name of the Petitioner’s father and as such, the Police Inspector, Sadar, Circle- Ara stated that Daroga Singh @ Ram Daroga Singh is the same person who is father of the petitioner namely Upendra Kumar and there is no other persons in the name of Daroga Singh in the Village Darshan Chapra. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 3 and vide impugned order dated 20.02.2019, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force, Range-111, CRPF, Dehradun has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. A revision application was also preferred by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, RAF and the same has been rejected vide impugned Order dated 09.01.2020, affirming the order of removal as well as appellate order. A revision application was also preferred by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, RAF and the same has been rejected vide impugned Order dated 09.01.2020, affirming the order of removal as well as appellate order. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that it is a case of no evidence. The petitioner is having Aadhar Card in his name, his wife has also having Aadhar card where his husband’s name is mentioned as Upendra Kumar. He further submits that the petitioner is Upendra Kumar and his elder brother’s name is Arun Kumar Singh, who lives in the village and his wife’s name is Sunita Devi and said Sunita Devi (Bhabhi of the petitioner) wanted to marry with the petitioner, but the petitioner denied and due to this reason, she made a false complaint against the petitioner with connivance of her brother Jai Prakash Singh (complainant). The mother, father and brother (Arun Kumar Singh) of petitioner were examined before the Enquiry Officer and they have categorically stated that petitioner is Upendra Kumar, but without considering the said statement, the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Mr. Krishna further argues that the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara has issued character certificate in favour of the petitioner and Mukhia, Gram Panchayat, Belaur, Block Udwantnagar, Bhojpur as well as Sarpanch have certified that petitioner is younger son of Sri Daroga Singh and working in CRPF. The action of the respondents for removing the petitioner from services without taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner in true perspective and without assigning any reason with regard to defence raised by the petitioner in his reply, is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per Contra, the Respondent have filed Counter Affidavit. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Departmental Enquiry was conducted as per the Rules and Procedures and there is no folly in the departmental proceeding. 5. Per Contra, the Respondent have filed Counter Affidavit. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Departmental Enquiry was conducted as per the Rules and Procedures and there is no folly in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner was given fair and unbiased hearing with sufficient opportunity to cross examine the PWs and as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be fully proved, then the Disciplinary Authority issued the order of removal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. The order of Disciplinary Authority was affirmed up to Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority, which is the highest authority of the Department. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: (I) The departmental proceeding was conducted as per the Rules and Procedures and no folly has been pointed-out in the entire departmental proceeding at any point of time which attained finality. The order of removal has been affirmed upto the Revisional Authority which is the highest authority of the Department and as such, it requires no interference. (II) While conducting the departmental proceeding and passing the final order, the principles of natural justice has been fully taken care of by the respondents. (III) It is not a case that without adhering to the cardinal principle of natural justice, the petitioner has been removed from services, rather, ample opportunity of hearing has been given by the respondent-authorities while passing the impugned order which is reflected from the order-sheets itself. (IV) Neither any objection has been raised by the petitioner that he was deprived from opportunity of being heard nor the order has been passed in complete violation of cardinal principle of natural justice. 7. Further, from the documents brought on record and specific averments made in paras- 36 & 37 of the counter-affidavit it appears that petitioner has obtained appointment on the basis of educational certificate of his elder brother Upendra Kumar (Singh), whereas the real name of petitioner is Arun Kumar Singh. 7. Further, from the documents brought on record and specific averments made in paras- 36 & 37 of the counter-affidavit it appears that petitioner has obtained appointment on the basis of educational certificate of his elder brother Upendra Kumar (Singh), whereas the real name of petitioner is Arun Kumar Singh. For the sake of brevity paras-36 & 37 of the counter-affidavit dated 12.04.2021 are quoted herein below: “36) That in reply to the statement made at paragraph 14 of the writ application, it is stated and submitted that in this connection, following letters were issued by Commandant 106 RAF addressed to S.P. Bhojpur (Ara) and District Collector, Bhojpur (Ara) on the matter:- S/N Commandant 106 RAF Letter No. & Date To whom issued Purpose Reference of Reply received from concerned authority 1 W-V01/2017- 106-ECIV dated 28/04/20 17 S.P. Bhojpur (Ara), Bihar For purpose of relationshi p of family members with petitioner S.P. Bhojpur (Ara) letter No. 823/V.R. dated 01/11/2017 forwarding thereof copy of P.S. – Udwantnagar verification report No. 512/17 dated 29.05.2017 as per which Sh. Daroga Singh, Vill. Darshan Chapra, Post Vichhiyan, PS Udwantnagar, Distt. Bhojpur, Bihar has two sons namely Upendra Kumar Singh and Arun Kumar Singh. His elder son Upendra Kumar Singh is residing with his parents at home and younger son namely Arun Kumar Singh is serving in CRPF on the basis of education certificate of his elder brother i.e. Upendra Kumar Singh. 2 P-VIII-3/ 2017- 106-ECII dated 13.07.20 21 D.M. Bhojpur (Ara) Bihar For enquiry of a complaint received from Arun Kumar Singh brother of petitioner. A copy of P.S. Udwanatnagar Verification report No. 1066/17 dated 13.07.2017 as per which the person who is serving in CRPF is Upendra Kumar Singh whereas name is Arun Kumar Singh and he is serving in CRPF in the education certificate of his brother. 37) That in addition to above, no further correspondence was made either with S.P. Bhojpur (Ara) or Collector, Bhojpur (Ara). Hence, it seems that the report dated 21.09.2018 prepared by Police Inspect Sadar Circle, Ara and forwarded by S.P. Bhojpur (Ara) was prepared as per the request of the petitioner and same was forwarded to 106 RAF without making any reference.” 8. Hence, it seems that the report dated 21.09.2018 prepared by Police Inspect Sadar Circle, Ara and forwarded by S.P. Bhojpur (Ara) was prepared as per the request of the petitioner and same was forwarded to 106 RAF without making any reference.” 8. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of several documents brought on record and after examination of witnesses came to a clear-cut finding that the real name of petitioner is Arun Kumar Singh and he is serving the respondent-Department by using educational certificate of his elder brother Upendra Kumar (Singh). However, this is the matter of factual disputes and cannot be adjudicated by the High Court and can be done only by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 9. Time and again, this issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court and it was held that a person who comes by the back door should go by the same door. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers' Assn., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 204 has held as under: 19. ………………. The method of appointment is indeed not calculated to ensure that the meritorious alone will always be appointed or that the appointments made will not be on considerations other than merit. In the absence of guidelines, the appointments may be made purely on personal or political considerations, and be arbitrary. This being so those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if the termination of their appointment is equally arbitrary. Those who come by the back door have to go by the same door. ……………”. Emphasis supplied Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 has clearly observed that, “where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.” Since in the instant case, the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it and as such, the impugned orders are fully justified. 10. 10. Further, in the departmental proceeding, the High Court has very limited power and can only has to appreciate the folly in the proceeding and also can examine whether fundamental rights have been infringed and ample opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and cardinal principle of natural justice has been adhered to or not. However, nothing has been whispered by the petitioner that he was deprived of opportunity of being heard and the order has been passed in complete violation of cardinal principle of natural justice. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held thus: “The High Court does not act as appellant authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to the decision of a case on merit as an appellate authority.” (ii) Insufficiency of materials cannot be a ground to annul the findings of the Enquiry Officer neither can a substituted view be taken in place of Enquiry officer/disciplinary authority in cases of departmental proceeding.” Further in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly observed that, “High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 cannot venture into appreciation of evidence or interfere with conclusions in enquiry proceedings if the same are conducted in accordance with law, or go into reliability/ adequacy of evidence, or interfere if there is some legal evidence on findings are based, or correct error of fact however grave it may be, or go into proportionality of punishment unless it shocks conscience of court”. In case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain ingredients to be looked into by the High Courts for interfering in the departmental proceeding, which reads as under: “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.” Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Phulpari Kumari, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 130 has held as under:: “6. The criminal trial against the respondent is still pending consideration by a competent criminal court. The order of dismissal from service of the respondent was pursuant to a departmental inquiry held against her. The inquiry officer examined the evidence and concluded that the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent was proved. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in re-appreciating the evidence and coming to a conclusion that the evidence on record was not sufficient to point to the guilt of the respondent: 6.1. It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of “no evidence”. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review. It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of “no evidence”. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review. The standard of proof as required in a criminal trial is not the same in a departmental inquiry. Strict rules of evidence are to be followed by the criminal court where the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, preponderance of probabilities is the test adopted in finding the delinquent guilty of the charge. 6.2. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of dismissal of the respondent by re-examining the evidence and taking a view different from that of the disciplinary authority which was based on the findings of the inquiry officer.” 12. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under: “8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process. The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority.” Further, in case of Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, re-ported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 27, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: “9. …………… that there was deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating circumstance. ……………... Such a well-reasoned and well considered decision of the respondent-authorities should not have been interfered by the Single Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when there were no allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were attributed against the respondent authorities.” 13. As the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges and has committed gross misconduct right at the time of his initial appointment, the order of removal has rightly been passed after following due process of law and without actuated with malafide. This Court is in total agreement with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. 14. This Court is in total agreement with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. 14. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, logical propositions and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. The same merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. 15. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.