RAM SARAN versus I.G. OF POLICE, CRPF AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1102 · Decided: 02-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM SARAN 
v. 
LG. OF POLICE, CRPF AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2006 
B 
[ARIJJT PASA VAT AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Seervice law: 
Appointment-On the basis of forged birth certificate-Disciplinary 
C proceeding initiated after 27 years of service-Dismissal from service--
Propriety of-Held: Since the delinquent was not eligible for appointment 
and had secured appointment on false information, he is liable to be 
dismissed--CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965-Rule 14--CCS (Pension) Rules,-Rule 
24--Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949-Section 11{1)-Central Reserve 
D Police Force Rules, 1955-Rules 27 and 29. 
Judicial Review: 
Order of administrator-Judicial review-Scope of-Held, Court should 
not interfere with administrator's decision unless it is illogical or suffers from 
E procedural impropriety O/I shocking to the conscience of the Court-The 
scope of interference in such matters is limited to deficiency in decision 
making process and not the decision--Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 
226. 
Appellant was appointed as a Constable in CRPF. After his having 
F rendered service of about 27 years, he faced departmental enquiry on the 
charge that he had furnished false information about his date of birth by 
making alteration in his school certificate to secure appointment. Disciplinary 
Authority decided that the appellant deserved stringent punishment. But in 
view of his long service with good grading for the past 10 years, he took lenient 
G view and imposed penalty of reduction of rank for a period of one year. Deputy 
Inspector General directed his dismissal from service. Appellate Authority 
confirmed the order of dismissal. Writ Petition filed against the order was 
also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
1102 
, 
RAMSARANv. I.G.OFPOLICE,CRPF[PASAYAT, J.] 
1103 
HELD: l. The present case does not deserve any leniency otherwise it A 
would be giving premium to a person who admittedly committed forgery. In 
the instruction (G.O. No.29/93), it has been provided that whenever it is found 
that a Government servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the 
recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false 
information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, B 
should not be retained in service. After inquiry as provided in Rule 14 of the 
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 ifthe charges are proved, the Government servant 
should be removed or dismissed from service and under no circumstances 
any other penalty should be imposed. (1107-B, CJ 
R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 105, C 
relied on. 
2. Courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless 
it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to 
the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or 
moral standards. The Court would not go into the correctness of the choice D 
made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute 
its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited 
to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 
(1105-H; 1106-A) 
V. Raman::i v. A.P. SRTC and Ors., [2005) 7 SCC 338 and (CA) Associated E 
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: [1947) 
2 All ER 680(CA), referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3044 of2003. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.2002 of the Bombay High 
Court in Writ Petition No. 1878/2000. 
Makarand D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Vijay Kumar and Vishwajit Singh for the 
Appellants. 
Vikas Singh, A.S.G. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and Ms. Sushma Suri 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment H 
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A 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'). 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
B 
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. 
In support of his claim of age he produced a certificate where his date of birth 
was stated to be l. l. l 951. But in reality as was revealed later, his date of birth 
was 1.7 .1951

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.