LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus AMAR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. AMAR SINGH NOVEMBER 23, 2007 [T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SA THASIV AM, JJ.] Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955-rr. 42, 14 & 27- Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949-s. JI & 18-CRPF constable C dismissed for having entered service by submitting fictitious certificate-His prayer for grant of pensionary benefits-Allowed by trial court and.first appellate court-High Court, dismissed second appeal in limini holding that Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules did not govern the service conditions of respondent-Held: Rule 42 of D CRP F Rules, which provides that even for CRP F personnel/force, Civil Service Regulations or Pensioi;i Rules are applicable, was not brought to notice of High Court-High Court wrongly concluded that CCS (Pension) Rules were not applicable, and made no discussion on merits-Matter remitted to it for fresh disposal on merits-Central E Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972-r.24. The respondent was enrolled as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. More than 29 years after his enrollment, respondent was found to have entered service by submitting fictitious school leaving F certificate. He was held guilty under section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and dismissed from service. He filed civil suit praying for reversal of the dismissal order and for grant of pensionary benefits for the past service rendered. Both the trialcou rt and the first appellate court upheld the G validity of the dismissal order but directed grant of pensionary benefits to respondent High Court, held that Rule 24 oftheCCS (Pension) Rules did not govern the service conditions of respondent, and dismissed the second appeal in limine. Hence the present appeal. H 498 y UNION OF INDIA v. AMAR SINGH 499 -· Allowing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1. The provisions of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 are applicable to the respondent. By virtue of Section 18 of the Act, the Central Government framed the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. B ~ Rule 42, which speaks about pensions and gratuities for service in the ) Force, makes it clear that even for the personnel/force in Central Reserve Police Force, Civil Service Regulations or Pension Rules are applicable. [Para 9] (503-F, G; 504-D) 1.2. It is seen that Rule 42 of the Central Reserve Police Force c Rules, 1955 has not been brought to the notice of the High Court. Inasmuch as the High Court has dismissed the second appeal only on this ground, it is but proper to remit the matter to the High Court to consider the claims of the parties on merits. [Para 9) [504-F, G] D ;! 2. As regards the claim of the respondent that irrespective of the order of dismissal/removal he is entitled to pension and gratuity for the past service rendered by him, this Court is refraining from expressing any opinion on merits, in view of its conclusion to remit the matter to the High Court. However, it is reiterated that a person who seeks equity E must come with clean hands. Also equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false certificate by playing a fraud. [Para 10] (505-C, DJ Union of India and Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd Bhat, (2005) 13 SCC 228; F Ram Saran v. JG of Police, CRPF and Ors., [2006) 2 SCC 541; Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, [1976] 1SCC311 and Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India, (1991] 2 SCC 371, referred to. 3. In so far as the plea of the respondent that it was not open to the authorities to verify his particulars after a lapse of29 years and 7 G ~-__ -.( months of service, Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Rules enables the authorities concerned to verify the particulars with regard to the same as soon as the person concerned has been inducted into the Force. It is not stated anywhere that "false" or "fake certificate" of education is to be verified immediately as stated in sub-clause (a) of Rule 14. On H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A the other hand, it is the responsibility of the person who seeks employment to place authenticated certificate about his educational qualification and community etc. [Para 11] [505-E, G, H; 506-A) 4. The High Court wrongly concluded that the CCS (Pension) Rules B were not applicable and made no discussion on merits of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.