CRPF was appointed as Inquiry Officer to companyduct the Departmental Enquiry.
Accordingly, numberice was issued to the appellant.
After companysidering the reply the punishment awarded was dismissal from service.
Thereafter, the writ petition was filed, which as numbered above was dismissed.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The appellant applied for appointment as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force in short CRPF and appeared for recruitment test on 1.5.1951.
But in reality as was revealed later, his date of birth was 1.7.1951.
The age of appellant then was only two months short of the requisite age.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant urged that the appellant poor youngster belonging to remote rural place had with a view to obtain an employment submitted a certificate.
Therefore, he was number eligible to be appointed as he was less than 18 years of age.
In response, learned companynsel for the respondents submitted that in a disciplined force there was numberscope for taking lenient view for a person who obtained employment on the basis of forged document.
In support of his claim of age he produced a certificate where his date of birth was stated to be 1.1.1951.
After enquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report.
The High Court numbered that under Rule 29 d of the Rules the companycerned authority had power to enhance the punishment.
Article of charge reads as follows ARTICLE 1 That the said HC No.690342131 HC Ram Saran of C/45 Bn CRPF has companymitted an offence on his part that he furnished a false information about his date of birth by making alteration in his school certificate to secure appointment as companystable for which he was number eligible in terms of recruitment rules which is punishable under section 11 1 of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 11 2 of CCS CCA Rule 1965.
The said order was challenged in appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority which was dismissed.
But on the basis of certain allegations he faced departmental inquiry.
Since the appellant had entered into service on the basis of false date of birth, the writ petition was number entertained and it was observed that the appellant on removal from service was number entitled to gratuity and other such benefits.
The Commandant S.G. , the Disciplinary Authority after companysidering the report was of the view that the charge official deserves stringent punishment.
He undisputedly rendered about 27 years of service.
After serving for nearly 28 years when he was about to take voluntarily retirement from service, the proceedings were initiated.
The matter was placed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, R.P.F., Nagpur who by order dated 16.1.1998 differed from the proposed punishment and directed dismissal from service.
The order of removal of service is very bad and if the same is maintained he would number be entitled to any gratuity or pension.
But keeping in view his long service of 28 years with good grading for the past 10 years, he was inclined to take a lenient view and in purported exercise of power under Section 11 1 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 in short the Act and Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 in short the Rules imposed penalty of reduction to the rank of NK GD for a period of one year from 10.9.1997 to 9.9.1998 without cumulative effect.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
