http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5367 of 2007

PETITIONER: Union of India & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Amar Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/11/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1082 OF 2005) P. Sathasivam, J. 1)              Leave granted.  2)              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 \023the Act\024)  and Rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,  1972 does not govern the service conditions is without  jurisdiction.  3)              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.  At the time  of enrolment, he had submitted a certificate regarding his  qualification.  After completion 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.  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.  The School Authorities, vide  their letter No.E-2/638 dated 26.08.1996 and letter dated  05.03.1997, confirmed that the School Leaving Certificate is  fictitious and bogus and not issued by them.  On the basis  of the report received from the School Authorities, a  departmental enquiry was ordered against the respondent  herein.  Consequently, on 05.05.1997, Shri Puran Singh  Asst. Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer to  enquire into the charges.  On completion 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 confirmed by the  concerned school.  A copy 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  not submit anything new for consideration.     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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

service.    Aggrieved by the dismissal order, on 01.02.2000, the  respondent herein filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil  Judge (Sr. 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.     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.  Aggrieved by the said  judgment, the appellants herein filed Civil Appeal No. 418 of  2002 in the District Court, Narnaul praying for setting aside  the same.  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 court was correct  and based on proper appreciation of evidence and proper  application of law and came to the conclusion that in view  of the provisions of Section 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972,  Rule 24 of the said Rules would not be applicable to the  respondent herein who is governed by the provisions of the  CRPF Act, 1949.  Aggrieved by the same, the appellants  herein moved R.S.A. No. 3891 of 2004 before the High  Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.  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 no infirmity in the order of the courts 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 not govern the service  conditions of the respondent herein.  Questioning the order  of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the  appellants have filed the above appeal by way of special  leave.  4)              We have heard Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel,  appearing for the appellants and Ms. Shweta Kapoor,  learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 5)              Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel appearing for the  Union of India by drawing our attention to the relevant  provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, the  Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 and the CCS  (Pension) Rules, 1972 submitted that the High Court  committed an error in concluding that Rule 24 of the CCS   (Pension) Rules would not be applicable to the respondent  herein and in the absence of any provision in the CRPF  Rules that provide for forfeiture of past service in case of  dismissal or removal from service, the appellant was  entitled to pensionary benefits after dismissal from service.   On the other hand, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, learned counsel  appearing for the respondent, submitted that in the absence  of specific provision either in the Act or Rules governing  Central Reserve Police Force, the Courts below including the  High Court were right in rejecting the stand of Central  Reserve Police Force.  She also contended that in view of the  fact that no specific order forfeiting the past service in the  order of dismissal from service, the authorities were not  entitled to forfeit pension or other benefits.  6)              We have carefully considered the rival submissions  with reference to the pleadings and also perused the  annexures and records filed along with this appeal.   7)              Before answering the above question, it is relevant  to refer to the impugned order passed by the learned Single  Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which reads  as under:-       \023Services of the respondent in the present case are  governed by Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.  Rule 24

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not  govern the service conditions of the respondent.         Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out  to me as to under which rule or section, forfeiture of past  service of the respondent can be done in case of dismissal.          No substantial question of law involves in this appeal.          I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated  28.02.2004 of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul.          Dismissed.\024 It is clear that the learned Judge after finding that Rule 24  of the CCS (Pension) Rules does not govern the service  conditions of the respondent and finding no substantial  question of law dismissed the second appeal in limine.  8)              After going through the relevant provisions as  pointed out by learned counsel for the Union of India, we  are unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by the High  Court for the following reasons: 9)              It is not 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.   By virtue of Section 18 of the Act, the Central Government  framed the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955.   Among the Rules, we are concerned with Chapter VIII and,  more importantly, Rule 42 which speaks about pensions  and gratuities for service in the Force.  Rule 42 reads as  follows: \02342. Pension.- (a) Pensions and gratuities for service in  the Force shall be regulated according to the provisions  contained 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. F.3(1)E(Spl)/47, dated the 17th April,  1950 as may be amended from time to time. (b) Pensions and gratuities to enrolled followers for service  in the Force shall be governed by provisions contained 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.F3(1)E(Spl)/47, dated the 17th  April, 1950, as may be amended from time to time.\024 The above referred provision makes it clear that even for the  personnel/force in Central Reserve Police Force, Civil  Service Regulations or Pension Rules are applicable.  In  fact, except Rule 42 clarifying that in respect of pensions  and gratuities for persons in the Force, certain provisions of  civil service regulations and pension Rules promulgated  Ministry of Finance, Government of India are applicable no  other provision speaks about the same.  Rule 24 of the CCS  (Pension) Rules reads as under:- \02324. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal.-  Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service  or post entails forfeiture of his past service.  It is seen that the above provision particularly Rule 42 of  the Central Reserve Police Force 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, in view of the present position as rightly pointed  out by learned counsel for the appellants, it is but proper to  remit the matter to the High Court to consider the claim of  both parties on merits.    10)     Learned counsel for the Union of India placed  reliance on two recent judgments of this Court, namely,  Union of India and Others vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat,  (2005) 13 SCC 228 and Ram Saran vs. IG of Police, CRPF

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 541 and submitted that the right  of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the  appointment was valid and legal.  According to her, in view  of the conclusion of the Courts below (trial and lower  appellate Court) and in the light of the fact that the  respondent who entered service by producing false  educational certificate, does not deserve any sympathy or  indulgence or equity from this Court.  Equally learned  counsel appearing for the respondent, placing reliance on  the decisions of this Court in Shri Krishnan vs. The  Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, (1976) 1 SCC 311  and Major G.S. Sodhi vs. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC  371 submitted that irrespective of the order of  dismissal/removal the respondent is entitled to pension and  gratuity for the past service rendered by him.  In view of our  conclusion to remit the matter to the High Court, we are not  expressing any opinion on merits.  However, we reiterate  that a person who seeks equity must come with clean  hands.  We also reiterate that 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.  11)     Learned counsel for the respondent by drawing our  attention to Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Rules  submitted that it is incumbent on the part of the authorities  to verify as soon as he is enrolled in the Force and they are  not permitted to do the same after 29 years and 7 months of  service.  The said Rule reads thus: \02314. Verification.- (a)  As soon as a man is enrolled, his  character, antecedents, connections and age shall be  verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by  the Central Government from time to time.  The  Verification Roll shall be sent to the District Magistrate or  Deputy Commissioner of the District of which the recruit  is a resident.\024 A reading of the said Rule clearly stipulates that after  enrolment in the Force, his \021character\022, \021antecedents\022,  \021connections\022 and \021age\022 shall be verified in accordance with  the procedure prescribed.  In other words, the said Rule  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  about \023false\024 or \023fake certificate\024 of education is to be  verified immediately as stated in sub-clause (a) of Rule 14.   On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the person who  seeks employment to place authenticated certificate about  his educational qualification and community etc.  12)     In view of our conclusion and of the fact that the  High Court has wrongly concluded that CCS (Pension) Rules  are not applicable and in the light of the fact that no  discussion on merits of the case, we set aside the impugned  order of the High Court and remit the same to the High  Court for fresh disposal.  Inasmuch as the High Court  dismissed the RSA in limine and in the light of the legal  position as pointed out above, the High Court is requested  to decide the issue after affording opportunity to both  parties.  As observed earlier, both parties are free to put- forth their respective claim/stand before the High Court by  placing all the relevant materials which support their case  and it is for the High Court to consider the same  expeditiously.         14)     Civil Appeal is allowed to this extent as indicated  above.  No costs.