IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 593 of 2008 (Old No. 8848 of 1996) Ex. No. 890195195 Constable Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Sri Narain Lal, R/o Village and Post Bans, Tehsil and District Pithoragarh. ……….…..Petitioner. Versus 1. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director General of Police, Indo Tibetan Border Police, Block-2, C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi-110003. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Indo Tibetan Border Police, Ram Krishnapuri, Post Office Chaubare, Bareilly (U.P.). 4. Commandant, 10th BN, Indo Tibetan Border Police, Head Quarter Mirthi, Pithoragarh (U.P.). ……………..Respondents. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Shah, Advocate, for the respondents. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.04.1995, passed by respondent 2 No.4, order dated 01.09.1995, passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 06.12.1995, passed by respondent No.2. By order dated 08.04.1995 petitioner’s services were terminated. By order dated 01.09.1995 his departmental appeal was dismissed. And by order dated 06.12.1995 the revision was dismissed. A mandamus has also been sought by the petitioner directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit, on record. 3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner passed his High School examination in the year 1988, conducted by Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, and appeared before the Recruitment Board, Indo Tibetan Border Police (for short I.T.B.P.) 19th Battalion Kullu (H.P.). He qualified the recruitment examination and also cleared the physical and other tests. He was recruited as Constable (G.D.) on 03.10.1989 with I.T.B.P.. After completing successful training of nine months, the petitioner was posted in Jammu & Kashmir. In April, 1994, petitioner was transferred to I.T.B.P. Unit at Mirthi (District Pithoragarh). It is alleged by the petitioner that due to grudge on the part of some people with whom he had land dispute, they made a complaint to the I.T.B.P. authorities that the petitioner is not High School passed, and he has 3 forged the certificates. An inquiry was initiated and according to the petitioner said inquiry terminated in favour of the petitioner. But, again similar complaint was made on which fresh inquiry was made whereafter the petitioner was terminated from service. The petitioner’s case is that petitioner appeared in High School examination held in the month of May and June 1988 from Arya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Talib Nagar, Aligarh, where his uncle was employed at the relevant point of time. It is further pleaded that said institution was recognized from Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner passed out the High School in the year 1988. Challenging the order of termination dated 08.04.1995 the petitioner has stated that there was no illegality in the High School certificate possessed by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner’s departmental appeal and the revision were dismissed wrongly by the authorities concerned. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that as per the report received from the Principal, Government Inter College, Bans (District Pithoragarh) vide his letter dated 08.12.1994 Manoj Kumar, the petitioner, appeared in the High School examination in the year 1988-89 with Roll No. 0292684 and declared failed. The respondents have further stated in the counter affidavit that in the year 1988 when the petitioner claims to have passed the High School examination 4 from Central Board of Higher Education, he failed in that year also from Government Inter College, Bans (District Pithoragarh) as a regular student. It is stated that he could not have appeared in High School examination from two Boards in the same year. Defending the impugned order of termination passed in terms of Rule 17 of I.T.B.P.F. Rules read with Section 25 of I.T.B.P.F. Act, 1992, it is stated that there is no illegality in terminating the services of the petitioner and in dismissal of his appeal and revision. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that a complaint was filed by one Mohan Lal Khatri that the petitioner has got himself inducted in service on the basis of the forged certificates issued by Arya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Talib Nagar, Aligarh. On said complaint, the petitioner was asked to explain his position vide letter dated 21.09.1994 and it was revealed that even in the year 1987 the petitioner failed in the High School examination from Government Inter College, Bans. According to the respondents one Sub Inspector Deepal Singh Deopa, member of the Inquiry Board was sent to the Government Inter College, Bans, to verify the facts before the inquiry was concluded. It is also stated that the inquiry was conducted as per the Rules judiciously. In para 13 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that from the letter dated 10.10.1995 received from Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, it is found that the institution from which the petitioner claims to have passed the High School was not a recognized / registered institution. The mark 5 sheet and the High School certificate submitted by the petitioner were found totally forged and fictitious on verification. To make the facts sure the matter was also got inquired into through Senior Superintendent of Police, who vide his letter dated 27.03.1995 reported that the certificate relied by the petitioner are forged and a case was registered against the Manager and Principal of Arya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Talib Nagar, Aligarh, on 23.03.1995. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner failed in the High School examination from the Government Inter College, Bans (District Pithoragarh) in the year 1988-89 but there was no bar to appear for the petitioner as a private candidate from another Board. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner does not appear to have force. Had the petitioner passed his High School examination in the year 1988 from a recognized institution and a recognized Board, there appears no explanation why the petitioner would appear in the next year i.e. 1988-89 to clear the High School examination from Government Inter College, Bans (District Pithoragarh). It has come on the record through the counter affidavit that the petitioner failed from said college in district Pithoragarh not only in the year 1988-89 but also in the year 1987. It has also come on the record that he was a regular student of said college. That being so it cannot be said that the petitioner was a regular student of any college at 6 Aligarh. Copy of the High School certificate filed by the petitioner as Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit does not show that the petitioner was a private candidate for High School examination in the year 1988. Neither the petitioner could show that Arya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Talib Nagar, Aligarh, was a recognized institution nor could he show that the certificate obtained by him allegedly from Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, was a genuine document. The facts and circumstances clearly show that the petitioner had not passed the High School examination from any recognized institution when he sought his entry with the respondent I.T.B.P. Force. From the record it further reveals that the petitioner was given proper opportunity for explaining his conduct before the impugned order of termination was passed against him. There appears no illegality in the impugned orders challenged before this Court, by the petitioner. 6. For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 14.12.2009 NS