JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged order No. R.XIII-2/01-02-EC-III dated 30.07.2003 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against order No. P.VIII-1/02-03-EC-II dated 30.12.2002 issued by respondent No. 5, has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 30.12.2002 (supra) issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service with effect from 31.12.2002. The petitioner has further sought a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Constable/Driver on which he was working prior to the issuance of impugned order dated 3012.2002 with all consequential benefits. 2. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable/Driver on 22.03.1991 with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted in 16 Bn. CRPF. He continued to serve as such up to the year 2000, when it came to the notice of the respondents that the petitioner had procured his appointment on the basis of a forged 8th pass certificate purported to have been issued by the Government Middle School, Kot Garhi, Akhnoor. Accordingly, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner with the framing of charge in terms of communication dated 24.09.1999. The following charge was framed against the petitioner: “That the said No. 911170072 Ct/Dvr Ram Paul of 136 Bn CRPF Bantalab (Jammu) has committed an offence of misconduct, cheating punishable under Section-11-(1) of CRPF Act-1949 in that he got himself enrolled in CRPF fraudulently by changing his education standard from class-VII to VIII in his original school leaving certificate issued by Govt. Middle School, Kot Garhi, Akhnoor in fraudulently manner and with ulterior motive to seek employment in CRPF, when he was not eligible for it.” 3. Based on the evidence led during the enquiry, respondent No. 2 found that the aforesaid charge stands proved against the petitioner and accordingly, punishment of removal from service with effect from 05.01.2001 was imposed upon the petitioner in terms of office order No. P. VIII-1/99-136-EC-2 dated 05.01.2001. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of removal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before DIG, CRPF, Jammu, the appellate authority. The said appeal came to be rejected by the appellate authority by virtue of order No. R.XIII-2/2001-DA-II(R) dated 05.07.2001. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of removal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before DIG, CRPF, Jammu, the appellate authority. The said appeal came to be rejected by the appellate authority by virtue of order No. R.XIII-2/2001-DA-II(R) dated 05.07.2001. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 3, who vide his order bearing No. R.XIII.1/2002-ADm.III dated 26.02.2002 allowed the revision petition and quashed the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service from the date of reporting and the intervening period from 05.01.2001 to 10.01.2001 was directed to be treated as on duty, whereas the period from date of serving the removal order to the date of reporting was treated as dies-non. A further direction was issued that the commandant, respondent No. 5 would hold a de-novo enquiry in the case to meet the ends of justice. Respondent No. 3, while passing the aforesaid order observed that copies of statements of prosecution witnesses have not been supplied to the petitioner; opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses has also not been afforded to him and reasonable time to produce defence in writing after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses was not allowed to the petitioner. 5. In the light of the aforesaid observations of the revisional authority, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and a fresh charge was framed against the petitioner, which is reproduced as under: “that No. 911170072 Ct/Dvr Ram Paul of 136 Bn.CRPF, Bantalab, Jammu has committed an offence of misconduct and cheating punishable under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act-1949 in that he got himself enrolled in CRPF fraudulently by changing his education standard from VIIth to VIIIth in his original school leaving certificate issued by Government Middle School, Kot Garhi, Akhnoon in fraudulently manner and with ulterior motive to seek employment in CRPF, when he was not eligible for it. 6. De-novo enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer after the petitioner denied the charge. The enquiry officer vide his report dated 30.12.2002 concluded that the petitioner has got enrolled in the CRPF on basis of a forged school leaving certificate, which amounts to misconduct punishable under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. 6. De-novo enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer after the petitioner denied the charge. The enquiry officer vide his report dated 30.12.2002 concluded that the petitioner has got enrolled in the CRPF on basis of a forged school leaving certificate, which amounts to misconduct punishable under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. Accordingly, order of removal from service against the petitioner was passed in terms of report/order dated 30.12.2002 issued by respondent No. 5. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority but the same was dismissed. 7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of removal from service primarily on the ground that in spite of direction of de-novo enquiry ordered by respondent No. 3 while exercising his revisional jurisdiction, the said enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. 8. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing objections thereto. In their objections, they have submitted that the de-novo enquiry has been conducted by the respondents in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, inasmuch as, the documents relied upon in support of the charge have been permitted to be inspected by the petitioner and he has been given chance to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. It has been submitted that the record of the enquiry would show that the petitioner in fact has cross-examined the witnesses produced by the department. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was also given opportunity to lead his defence and his statement was also recorded. It has been submitted that the petitioner did not opt to produce any evidence in defence. The respondents have further submitted that as per the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the certificate bearing No. 989 dated 05.09.1985 issued by the Government Middle School, Kot Garhi Akhnoor was found to be forged, inasmuch as, during course of enquiry it was found that the petitioner has only passed 7th Class but the word 7th has been tampered to make it 8th in the certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his enrolment in the CRPF. In this manner, the petitioner by representing himself to be 8th pass acquired the eligibility to apply for the post of the Constable/Driver and gained entry in the CRPF. In this manner, the petitioner by representing himself to be 8th pass acquired the eligibility to apply for the post of the Constable/Driver and gained entry in the CRPF. This, according to the respondents, amounts to misconduct punishable under Section 11 of the CRPF Act. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the enquiry. 10. The question that is required to be determined is as to whether the enquiry officer has, before concluding that the certificate produced by the petitioner was forged, collected the relevant material in this regard and as to on what basis such a conclusion has been arrived at by the enquiry officer. 11. If we go to the report of the enquiry officer, it is stated therein that when authenticity of certificate No. 989 dated 05.04.1985 produced by the petitioner at the time of his enrolment in CRPF was verified from Headmaster Government Middle School, Kot Garhi, it was conveyed vide letter dated 01.06.1999 by the Headmaster that the petitioner had studied in the said school upto 7th Class and that the same is recorded in the certificate dated 05.04.1985 as well. The petitioner was asked to explain by the respondents, whereupon he produced a duplicate School Leaving Certificate No. 1945 dated 20.09.1999 issued by the same School. In the said certificate, it was shown that the petitioner had passed 8th Class. However, the Headmaster of the school intimated vide his letter dated 27.09.1999 that no such certificate has been issued by the school. The enquiry report further provides that the petitioner produced letter dated 21.10.1999 issued by the Headmaster of the same school, wherein it was recorded that earlier certificate stands cancelled and that the petitioner has passed 8th class from the said school. However, Chief Education Officer, Jammu vide his letter dated 03.02.2000 termed the aforesaid letter as fake. Thereafter, letter dated 04.02.2000 issued by the Dy. Chief Education Officer was received by the Commandant in which it was stated that the petitioner has passed 8th Class from the aforesaid school and that the Headmaster had submitted double report due to the confusion caused on account of another student with the same name having studied in the same school. The enquiry officer verified these facts from the Chief Education Officer, who vide his letter dated 14.03.2000 intimated that the information given by Dy. The enquiry officer verified these facts from the Chief Education Officer, who vide his letter dated 14.03.2000 intimated that the information given by Dy. Chief Education Officer is correct. 12. In the enquiry report, it is further recorded that in view of the confusing and contradictory reports regarding the educational qualification of the petitioner, the Chief Education Officer was against approached to verify the facts. Ultimately, the Chief Education Officer on the basis of the verification conducted by the Zonal Education Officer vide his letter dated 04.12.2000 intimated to the Commandant that the petitioner had studied upto 7th Class in Govt. Middle School Kot Garhi under Adm. No. 260. On this basis, the enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner has produced a fake educational qualification certificate. 13. Upon careful analysis of the report of the enquiry officer, it comes to the fore that the Headmaster and the Higher Officers of the Education Department have furnished contradictory information to the enquiry officer as regards the authenticity of the certificate produced by the petitioner before the respondents at the time of his enrolment in the CRPF. It seems that enquiry officer has simply issued letters to the concerned officers of the Education Department to get the requisite information without actually summoning the relevant record from the concerned school. Instead of verifying the authenticity of letters addressed by Headmaster, Dy. Chief Education Officer and Chief Education Officer addressed to the Commandant on the subject of educational qualification of the petitioner, the enquiry officer could have easily procured the requisite information by summoning the relevant record from the concerned school. This would have led him to the correct conclusion but unfortunately the enquiry officer has, because of the procedure adopted by him, created confusion instead of resolving the issue. 14. Having regard to the fact that the enquiry officer has not summoned and examined the record on the basis of which the information regarding educational qualification was recorded in the certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his enrolment, it can safely be stated that the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer is based on insufficient material. The report of the enquiry, therefore, could not have been made the basis for passing the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service. 15. The report of the enquiry, therefore, could not have been made the basis for passing the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed and impugned order of removal of the petitioner from the service is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, whereafter they shall verify the authenticity of the particulars recorded in the certificate that was produced by the petitioner at the time of his enrolment, by summoning and examining the relevant record of the concerned school. The question as in what manner the period during which the petitioner remained absent from duty due to his removal from service is to be treated, shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with the outcome of the enquiry. 16. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.