Holding

Rule 42 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 makes civil service pension regulations applicable to CRPF personnel, so the High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Summary

Amar Singh, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was found after 29 years of service to have entered the force using a fictitious school leaving certificate. A departmental enquiry confirmed the fraud, leading to his dismissal under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. He filed a civil suit seeking reversal of the dismissal and pensionary benefits; the trial court and first appellate upheld the dismissal but granted pension, while the High Court held that Rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 did not apply to CRPF personnel and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that Rule 42 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 expressly makes civil service pension regulations applicable to CRPF personnel, rendering the High Court's conclusion erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the pension claim, with a note that equity requires a clean hand.

Issues considered

Whether the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 24 on forfeiture of service on dismissal, govern the pensionary rights of a CRPF constable dismissed for fraud.
Whether a CRPF employee dismissed for entering service with a falsified certificate is entitled to pension and gratuity for past service.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972s. 24
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949s. 11(1), s. 18
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955s. 14, s. 27, s. 42

Subjects

pensiondismissalfraudCRPFcivil service pension rulesforfeiture of serviceequityverificationRule 42Rule 24

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
AMAR SINGH

NOVEMBER 23, 2007
B
[T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, 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 ofpensionary benefits-Allowed by
trial court and.first appellate court-High Court, dismissed second
appeal in limini holding that Rule 24 ofthe CCS (Pension) Rules did
not govern the service conditions of respondent-Held: Rule 42 of
D CRPF Rules, which provides that even for CRPFpersonnel/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 ofdismissal/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 ofIndia and Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd Bhat, (2005) 13 SCC 228;
Ram Saran v. JG of Police, CRPF and Ors., [2006) 2 SCC 541; Shri F
Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, [1976] 1SCC311
and Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union ofIndia, (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 ofservice, 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
were not applicable and made no discussion on merits of the case. The
B
matter is, therefore, remitted to High Court for fresh disposal. :.__

[Para 12] [506-B) '
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5367 of
2007.
c From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.9.2004 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 3891 of2004.
Binu Tamta (for Sushma Suri), for the Appellant.
Shweta Kapoor (for Anis Ahmed Khan), for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. ( 1) Leave granted.
(2) Challenge in this appeal is by the Union of India and its
E 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 not govern
F 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
G submitted a certificate regarding his qualification. After completion of29
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.
H
UNION OF INDIA v. AMAR SINGH 501
-- [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Therefore, the Pay and Accounts Office directed OC Gurgaon to verify A
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 B
.J 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 c
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 D
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
E
Act read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, on 20.09.1997 and
was removed from 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 F
jurisdiction and that he may be granted pensionary and retiral 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
G
J...._.,, the said judgment, the appellants herein filed Civil Appeal No. 418 of
2002 in the District Court, Namaul 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 appre~iation of evidence and
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 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 of2004 before the
B 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 ofRule 24 of the Central
C 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
0
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
E 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
F in case of dismissal or removal from service, he 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
G 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
H
y
UNION OF INDIA v. AMAR SINGH 503
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to the pleadings and also perused the annexures and records filed along A
.., 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:-
B
"Services of the respondent in the present case are governed
by Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. Rule 24 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
c
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.
D
I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 28.02.2004
of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul.
Dismissed."

It is clear that the learned Judge after finding that Rule 24 of the CCS E
(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 F
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, G
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:
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 12 S.C.R.

A "42. 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 XL VIII of the Civil Service Regulation
as may be anlended from time to time and the new Pension Rules
promulgated in the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance
B Memorandum No. FJ(l)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
c and the New Pension Rules published in the Government oflndia
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."

The above referred provision makes it clear that even for the personnel/
D 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
E speaks about the same. Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules reads as
under:-
"24. Forfeiture ofservice on dismissal or removal. - Dismissal
or removal of a Government servant from a service or post entails
forfeiture of his past service.
F
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
G 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 oflndia placed reliance on two
recent judgments of this Court, namely, Union of India and Ors. v.
H Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, [2005] 13 SCC 228 and Ram Saran v. /G of
UNION OF INDIA v. AMAR SINGH 505
~
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Police, CRPF and Ors., [2006] 2 SCC 541 and submitted that the right A
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 B
this Court. Equally learned counsel appearing for the respondent, placing
reliance on the decisions of this Court in Shri Krishnan v. The
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, [1976] 1 SCC 311 and Major
G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India, [1991] 2 SCC 371 submitted that
irrespective of the order of dismissal/removal the respondent is entitled c
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 D
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
E
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:
"14. 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 F
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."

A reading of the said Rule clearly stipulates that after enrolment in the
G
>-.--.. Force, his 'character', 'antecedents', 'connections' and 'age' shall be
ve1ified 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 "false" or "fake certificate"
H
•'(
'

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 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.
B (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
C 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
D the same expeditiously.
(14) Civil Appeal is allowed to this extent as indicated above. No
costs.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.