Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein moved R.S.A. No.
A companyy of the Enquiry Report was provided to the respondent herein asking for his representation if any, within a period of 15 days, but he did number submit anything new for companysideration.
The factual position in a nutshell is as follows The respondent herein was enrolled as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 28.02.1968.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants herein filed Civil Appeal No.
Among the Rules, we are companycerned with Chapter VIII and, more importantly, Rule 42 which speaks about pensions and gratuities for service in the Force.
After going through the relevant provisions as pointed out by learned companynsel for the Union of India, we are unable to accept the companyclusion arrived at by the High Court for the following reasons It is number in dispute that the provisions of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 are applicable to the respondent herein.
Therefore, the Pay and Accounts Office directed OC Gurgaon to verify the authenticity of the School Leaving Certificate and intimate the actual date of birth in respect of the respondent hererin from the School Authorities.
Aggrieved by the dismissal order, on 01.02.2000, the respondent herein filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge Sr.
F3 1 E Spl /47, dated the 17th April, 1950, as may be amended from time to time.
On the basis of the report received from the School Authorities, a departmental enquiry was ordered against the respondent herein.
The School Authorities, vide their letter No.
The learned Civil Judge, on 22.10.2002, decreed the suit of the respondent herein holding that the dismissal order was passed as per law but he was entitled to pension, gratuity, provident fund etc.
After the charges leveled against the respondent herein having been proved beyond doubt, he was found guilty under Section 11 1 of the Act read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, on 20.09.1997 and was removed from service.
Rule 42 reads as follows Pension.
Consequently, on 05.05.1997, Shri Puran Singh Asst.
F.3 1 E Spl /47, dated the 17th April, 1950 as may be amended from time to time.
Pensions and gratuities to enrolled followers for service in the Force shall be governed by provisions companytained in the Central Class IV Services Gratuity, Pension and Retirement Rule, 1936 and the New Pension Rules published in the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Memorandum No.
Division , Narnaul, inter alia, praying that the order of dismissal was bad and without jurisdiction and that he may be granted pensionary and retrial benefits.
On companypletion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and found that the articles of charges framed against the delinquent were substantiated vide prosecution as well as defence evidence cited as proof and it was established that the School Leaving Certificate submitted by him at the time of enrolment was fake which was also companyfirmed by the companycerned school.
a Pensions and gratuities for service in the Force shall be regulated according to the provisions companytained in Chapters XV to XXI and XLVII and XLVIII of the Civil Service Regulation as may be amended from time to time and the new Pension Rules promulgated in the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Memorandum No.
After companypletion of 29 years and 7 months of service, in order to verify the service rendered by him to determine the qualifying service with regard to pension, it has been observed by the Pay and Accounts Office that his date of birth has been amended in the School Leaving Certificate without any authority.
By virtue of Section 18 of the Act, the Central Government framed the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955.
E 2/638 dated 26.08.1996 and letter dated 05.03.1997, companyfirmed that the School Leaving Certificate is fictitious and bogus and number issued by them.
At the time of enrolment, he had submitted a certificate regarding his qualification.
Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges.
418 of 2002 in the District Court, Narnaul praying for setting aside the same.
Questioning the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the appellants have filed the above appeal by way of special leave.
Arising out of SLP C No.
1082 OF 2005 Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
The learned District Court, vide order dated 28.02.2004, dismissed the appeal of the appellants herein by holding that the decision of the trial companyrt was companyrect and based on proper appreciation of evidence and proper application of law and came to the companyclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 2 of CCS Pension Rules 1972, Rule 24 of the said Rules would number be applicable to the respondent herein who is governed by the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949.
3891 of 2004 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Challenge in this appeal is by the Union of India and its functionaries to the judgment dated 27.09.2004 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh holding that the services of the respondent herein are governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 in short the Act and Rule 24 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 does number govern the service companyditions is without jurisdiction.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 27.09.2004, dismissed the appeal of the appellants herein holding that there was numberinfirmity in the order of the companyrts below and held that the services of the respondent was governed by the provisions of the Act and the provisions of Rule 24 of the Central Civil Services Rules does number govern the service companyditions of the respondent herein.
