1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 19.09.2025 Order passed on : 29.10.2025 WPS No. 4258 of 2023 1 - Aftab Ahmed Malik S/o Ghulam Qadir Malik Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chowkian, P.O. Darhal Malkan, P.S. Darhal Malkan, Tehsil Darhal Malkan, District : Rajauri, Jammu And Kashmir ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi 2 - Staff Selection Commission New Delhi Through Its Chairman 3 - Director General, Central Reserve Police Force Block No.-1, C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 4 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Dehradun Sector, Crpf, Ucf Sadan, Deep Nagar, Vishnu Vihar, Dehradun (Uttarakhand) 5 - Commandant - 195 Battalion, C.R.P.F Barsur, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The petitioner, Aftab Ahmed Malik, was employed as a Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF after being selected through the CAPFs Exam 2013-14. Despite having successfully completed all recruitment Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 stages and serving faithfully from 2015 to 2022, the appointment of petitioner was challenged due to an alleged error in the State code entered in his application form, he entered code of Lakshadweep instead of Jammu & Kashmir’s. Following a writ petition by another candidate challenging the selection of petitioner, the SSC issued a show cause notice in 2018, and an inquiry in 2022 found the petitioner guilty of misconduct for providing incorrect information. Consequently, he was removed from service by an order dated 30.07.2022. The appeal of petitioner and subsequent revision against this removal were dismissed, culminating in the impugned order dated 11.04.2023. The petitioner contends that the mistake was an inadvertent error, that relevant documents clearly showed his actual domicile (Jammu & Kashmir), and that the SSC failed in its duty to verify the information properly during recruitment. He challenges his removal as unjust and seeks reinstatement and has prayed for following reliefs by way of this writ petition :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to set aside the order impugned dated 11/04/2023 along with order dated 30/7/2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 4 which was an appeal of the order of dismissal passed by respondent no. 5 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, to re-instate the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief which may deem fit may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, as canvased in this writ petition, are that the petitioner, Aftab Ahmed Malik, was selected as a Constable (General 3 Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) through the CAPFs Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the year 2013-14. He successfully cleared all required stages, including the physical efficiency test, physical standard test, and medical examination. The results were declared on 30.05.2014, and the petitioner was formally selected under the general category on 01.04.2015. He served in the CRPF with honesty and dedication from 01.04.2015 until 30.07.2022. However, a candidate named Sheraz Ahmed, who was unsuccessful in the same examination, filed a writ petition (SWP No. 3230 of 2015) challenging his non-selection. In the petition, Sheraz Ahmed pointed out the name and roll number of petitioner, alleging that the petitioner was selected despite scoring lower. It was claimed that the petitioner had been wrongly selected against the Lakshadweep state quota by declaring state code 19 in his application, whereas he actually belonged to Jammu & Kashmir, which uses state code 15. At the time, the petitioner was serving in the 117 Battalion of CRPF with force number 155230522. Following this, the SSC issued a letter dated 16.05.2018 directing the DIG CRPF in Pinjore, Haryana, to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner for providing incorrect state code information and to consider appropriate action. Consequently, on 23.06.2018, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, informing him of his disqualification after a revision of the results by the SSC. The petitioner was asked to explain why his appointment should not be cancelled for submitting wrong information in his application and not following the examination guidelines. In response, the petitioner submitted appropriate replies to the show cause notice. Letters dated 19.07.2018 and 17.08.2018 from the 4 Commandant of the 117 Battalion, CRPF, supported the claim of petitioner. The commandant noted that the petitioner had clearly mentioned his home address as Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir, in his application and other recruitment documents. It was suggested that the incorrect state code 19 may have been an inadvertent oversight. The commandant also stated that it was the responsibility of the SSC to verify the correctness of the state code during the recruitment process and recommended that the petitioner be allowed to continue serving in the CRPF, with necessary amendments made to avoid causing financial hardship. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted on 06.01.2022 while the petitioner was posted with the E/195 Battalion in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. The inquiry found the petitioner guilty of disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, and misconduct under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. It was held that the petitioner had committed a serious offense by incorrectly declaring the state code in his application form, leading to his wrongful appointment as a Constable (GD). This misconduct was deemed prejudicial to the discipline of the Force and punishable under the CRPF Rules, 1955. Consequently, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 30.07.2022. Despite the findings of inquiry, the inquiry officer acknowledged in the report that the petitioner had clearly mentioned his correct domicile (Jammu & Kashmir) in the application and related documents. The inquiry officer also opined that the SSC failed to detect and act on the mistake at the time of selection. The petitioner filed an appeal against his removal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, to the office of the DIG, Rampur Range, CRPF. However, the appeal was dismissed, and the removal order was 5 upheld by an order dated 21.11.2022, communicated to the petitioner on 23.11.2022. The petitioner then filed a revision petition under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, with the office of respondent No. 4. This revision was also rejected, and the removal order was maintained by the impugned order dated 11.04.2023. The petitioner contends that the order of removal is excessively harsh and arbitrary, especially considering his nearly eight years of faithful service in the CRPF, risking his life for the country. The petitioner alleges malafide intent and negligence on the part of the SSC for failing to verify the state code earlier. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a candidate in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in 2013-14, submitted his application form with full honesty and transparency. The petitioner clearly mentioned his permanent home address as District Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir in the application and supporting documents. However, due to inadvertence and a genuine oversight, he mistakenly entered the state code as ‘19’ (Lakshadweep) instead of the correct state code ‘15’ (Jammu and Kashmir) on the application form. This error was purely clerical and unintentional, and there is no evidence to suggest any fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner. It is significant to note that the domicile certificate and other supporting documents of petitioner, submitted during the recruitment process, correctly indicated Jammu and Kashmir as the place of residence of petitioner. Furthermore, all official communications, including call letters and selection letters, were sent by the SSC to the actual address of 6 petitioner in Jammu and Kashmir. This demonstrates that the recruitment agency was aware of the correct domicile of petitioner and that any discrepancy in the state code was overlooked by the respondents. Had the petitioner harbored any intention to defraud the recruitment authority, he would not have furnished all the necessary and truthful information regarding his permanent address, nor would he have maintained consistency in his correspondence details. Therefore, the assertion that the petitioner deliberately misrepresented his domicile to gain an unfair advantage is wholly baseless and untenable. It was the primary responsibility of the SSC and the recruitment board to diligently verify the correctness of the application form, including the accuracy of the state code, by cross-checking with all related documents at the time of the recruitment process. The failure to identify the discrepancy at the initial stage and the subsequent acceptance of the candidature of petitioner amount to a clear negligence on the part of the respondents. The petitioner was allowed to join the force, and no objections were raised by the respondents during his recruitment, posting, and service period which spanned over seven years and three months. This long and uninterrupted service period without any adverse remarks underscores the acceptance of the candidature of petitioner and domicile by the authorities. The respondents cannot now turn around and penalize the petitioner for an error that went unnoticed and unchallenged for such a substantial period. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the removal of the petitioner from service while he was posted with E/195 Battalion, CRPF in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, brings the cause of 7 action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Supreme Court, in several judgments including Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra v. Union of India, reported in AIR Online 2020 SC 819, Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 277, and Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 has emphasized that if any part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of a Court, that court will have jurisdiction. Since the petitioner was serving in Chhattisgarh at the time of his removal, the present petition is clearly maintainable in this Court. 5. The petitioner, now approximately 34 years old, has rendered over seven years of faithful and dedicated service as a Constable (General Duty) with the CRPF. Given his age and the nature of his employment, it is highly improbable that he will have any meaningful opportunity to appear in another Government examination. Removal at this stage will cause him severe financial hardship and emotional distress, adversely impacting not only him but also his dependent family members who rely solely on his income. The disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 is fundamentally flawed. These provisions apply only to misconduct committed by a member of the force in his capacity as such. The alleged error committed by petitioner in filling the state code was committed prior to his induction into the force and, therefore, cannot constitute misconduct under these provisions. The Gauhati High Court, in the matter of Chandan Rai v. Union of India, reported in 2023 SCC Online Gau 5381, has held that 8 disciplinary proceedings under Section 11(1) apply only to acts committed in the capacity of a member of the force, and not to pre- recruitment acts. Further, the petitioner was not a party to the writ petition (SWP No. 3230 of 2015) filed by another candidate challenging the recruitment results. The unilateral decision taken by SSC to revise the results and declare the petitioner ‘NOT QUALIFIED’ without providing him an opportunity for a hearing or to present his case violates the principles of natural justice and is arbitrary. Such a decision without following due process is legally unsustainable. The punishment of removal from service after more than seven years of service is grossly disproportionate to the alleged clerical error in the application form. The Supreme Court in Ranjeet Thakur v. Union of India, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611 has laid down the principle that the quantum of punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and not be unduly harsh or vindictive. The sentence imposed on the petitioner shocks the conscience and violates the doctrine of proportionality, especially when weighed against the long, clean service record of petitioner. The case of petitioner is also supported by the decision in Bhawar Singh Gurjar v. Union of India, reported in (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 378, where it was held that an inadvertent error in mentioning the state code in the application form cannot be held against a candidate, particularly where all other documents clearly indicate the correct domicile and no objections were raised at the time of verification or during the course of service. The petitioner has suffered a miscarriage of justice due to the erroneous application of the CRPF Act and Rules, failure to verify documents by the recruitment agency, and an arbitrary and disproportionate 9 punishment. He has also been deprived of his livelihood and rendered vulnerable to financial ruin. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 whereby the petitioner was removed from service and the order dated 11.04.2023 dismissing the revision petition filed by petitioner and direct the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, including seniority, salary, and allowances 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 strenuously opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the petitioner appeared in the recruitment examination for the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Rifleman in Assam Rifles in the year 2013, conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The petitioner successfully cleared the Physical Efficiency Test (PET)/ Physical Standard Test (PST), written examination, and medical examination, securing 37 marks in the written test. Subsequently, the SSC declared a provisional list of selected candidates for Constable (GD), 2013 and allocated the petitioner to the CRPF against the vacancy earmarked for Lakshadweep (State Code 19), as per the state code indicated by the petitioner in his application form. The petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) under the General category on 01.04.2015 at the Group Centre, CRPF Pinjore. Upon completion of his Basic Training at the Group Centre, the petitioner reported to 117 Battalion CRPF on 01.04.2017. After serving the normal tenure there, he was transferred to 195 Battalion CRPF, where he remained posted from 10.12.2021 10 until 30.07.2022. Meanwhile, a writ petition (SWP No. 3230 of 2015) was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir by Sheraz Ahmad, challenging the selection process for Constable (GD) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination 2013. The petition contended that despite Sheraz Ahmad scoring 52 marks, he was not selected, whereas the petitioner, scoring only 37 marks, was selected for the same domicile state of Jammu & Kashmir. Following the writ petition, the Staff Selection Commission (North West Region), by letter dated 16.05.2018, directed that the CRPF should issue a show cause notice to the petitioner to explain why his appointment should not be cancelled for providing incorrect information (wrong state code) and for violating the examination guidelines. It was also instructed that, if necessary, the results may be revised accordingly. In compliance with directions issued by SSC, 117 Battalion CRPF issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.06.2018, seeking an explanation for the discrepancy in the state code provided in his application. The petitioner submitted a response, which was forwarded for further necessary action to the appropriate authorities within CRPF. On 23.09.2021, the C-1/2 Section of SSC requested the revision of the result of petitioner due to the correction of the state code from ‘19’ (Lakshadweep) to ‘15’ (Jammu & Kashmir). Upon revision, it was determined that the petitioner did not meet the qualifying marks for the state code ‘15’ (J&K), as the last selected unreserved candidate from Jammu & Kashmir had scored 52 marks, which was substantially higher than the 37 marks obtained by petitioner. Consequently, the SSC officially revised the status of petitioner to ‘Not Qualified’ for the Constable (GD) post under Jammu & Kashmir quota, thereby 11 invalidating his original selection under Lakshadweep quota. The petitioner, being a resident of Jammu & Kashmir, was thus wrongly selected for a vacancy reserved for Lakshadweep due to the incorrect state code filled in the application form. This misrepresentation was a clear violation of the recruitment rules and guidelines laid down in the Notice of Examination issued by SSC. The revised result and the facts regarding the incorrect declaration made by petitioner were communicated to the CRPF, which then initiated appropriate departmental action as per existing rules and regulations. The Directorate General CRPF, through its Recruitment Directorate, issued a formal communication dated 24.11.2021, stating that the petitioner was ineligible for the post against the Jammu & Kashmir vacancy, having been wrongly selected under the Lakshadweep quota. It was directed that the services of petitioner should be terminated after due process. Accordingly, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The charge framed against the petitioner was that he had committed misconduct by providing false information in his application, thereby securing appointment through wrongful means. After a thorough inquiry including examination of evidence and statements, the petitioner was found guilty of disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, and misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. The competent authority imposed the punishment of removal from service with effect from 30.07.2022, as recorded in the Office Order dated 30.07.2022 issued by 195 Battalion CRPF. The petitioner challenged the punishment by filing an appeal dated 05.08.2022 before the Appellate Authority, DIG CRPF, Range 12 Rampur. After careful consideration, the appeal was dismissed on 21.11.2022 for being devoid of merit. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the next superior authority, the IG CRPF, Dehradun Sector, on 05.12.2022. The competent authority also rejected the revision petition on 11.04.2023, maintaining the original order of removal. It is submitted that the act of petitioner of providing incorrect state code and thereby securing appointment in a vacancy reserved for another state is a serious violation of recruitment rules, undermining the principles of fairness and merit-based selection. The claim of petitioner of inadvertent mistake is not tenable since the state code is a critical and mandatory field in the application form, and the recruitment process relies heavily on such information to allocate vacancies accurately. The petitioner was expected to exercise due diligence while filling the form. 7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 that the long service of petitioner does not absolve him of his initial misrepresentation or preclude the respondents from taking corrective action once the error was detected. Maintaining discipline and integrity in recruitment is paramount for the credibility of the Force. The disciplinary provisions under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules clearly apply to misconduct committed by a member of the Force, and the actions of petitioner constitute serious misconduct as they relate directly to his appointment and continued service. The orders impugned are therefore in accordance with law, procedure, and justice, and deserve to be upheld. In view of the foregoing submissions and the material on record, it is respectfully prayed that the petition be dismissed and the actions taken against the 13 petitioner be upheld in the interest of maintaining the sanctity and fairness of the recruitment process in CAPFs. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed along with the petition with atmost circumspection. 9. The order of removal of the petitioner, Aftab Ahmed Malik, from service rests on the finding that he had committed misconduct by mentioning an incorrect State Code in his application form while applying for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). It was alleged that, by indicating the code “19” corresponding to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, instead of “15” for Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner secured selection under a State quota to which he was not entitled. The said act was held to constitute misconduct under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and the punishment of removal was consequently imposed. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 11.04.2023, affirmed the finding of misconduct and upheld the penalty. Therefore, this Court is called upon to determine whether the error committed by the petitioner, in the circumstances of the case, amounts to “misconduct” in the legal sense, and whether the punishment imposed is proportionate and sustainable in law. 10. Before entering into the merits of the controversy, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 provides that any member of the Force who is guilty of disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of duties, or of any act prejudicial to good order and 14 discipline, may be punished with the penalties prescribed under the Rules. It is apt to refer to Section 11 (1) fo the CRPF Act, 1955 which is reproduced herein under : “11. Minor punishments. - (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act award in lieu of or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force whom he considered to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force, that is to say :- (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month’s pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty eight days with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force.” 11. Further, Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 (corresponding to the 1995 procedural framework) lays down the manner of conducting departmental inquiries and prescribes the procedure for awarding penalties for misconduct or dereliction of duty. These provisions are intended to regulate the internal discipline of serving personnel and apply to acts committed by members of the Force in the course of or in relation to their service obligations. 15 12. Examining the facts of the present case, the petitioner was selected through the CAPFs Examination 2013–14 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The application form, as well as the subsequent documents, unambiguously recorded his permanent address as District Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir. The domicile certificate, identity proof, medical call letters, and physical test call letters all indicated Jammu and Kashmir as his place of residence. Even the departmental correspondences, including the order of removal, were addressed to this very location. Thus, there is no dispute about the domicile of petitioner. The only discrepancy lies in the entry of State Code “19” in the application form, which corresponds to Lakshadweep instead of Jammu and Kashmir (State Code “15”). 13. As regards the erroneous mention of the State Code, it appears from the record that the petitioner entered the wrong code inadvertently while filling up the form. The entry appears to be a clerical or typographical mistake without any element of deceit. The detailed address and documents of petitioner were consistent throughout the recruitment process and were verifiable from official records. The error was not detected by the SSC at any stage of scrutiny, neither at the time of acceptance of the application, nor during document verification, nor while issuing call letters for tests or final appointment. This circumstance clearly demonstrates that the authorities themselves treated the petitioner as a bona fide candidate belonging to Jammu and Kashmir. 16 14. The question, therefore, is whether such a negligent act in filling an online form can be treated as a “misconduct” within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Superintendent of Police & Ors vs. Joydev Roy, reported in 1996 SCC OnLine Cal 443 has held as under : “6. It is now well know that when misconduct has not been defined in service rules governing the service conditions, the same has to be given a general meaning. The word ‘misconduct’ is a generic term. This aspect of the matter has been considered by one of us (Satyabrata Sinha, J.) in Probodh Kumar Bhowmick v. University of Calcutta reportedin, (1994) 2 C.L.J. 456: [1994 (8) SLR 300 (Cal.)] wherein his Court took note of various decisions of the Supreme Court defining the word ‘misconduct’. In paragraph 14, 18, 20 and 21 of the said judgement it has been held as follows:— “14. Misconduct, inter alia, envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It means, “improper behaviour intentional wrong doing or deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behaviour.” “Misconduct is transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it is a violation of definite law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness. 17 Misconduct even if it is an offence under the Indian Panel Code is equally a misconduct. 18. in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd v. Its Workmen, reported in (1969) 2 LLJ 755 at 772, Shah, J. states “misconduct spreads over a wide and hazy spectrum of industrial activity; the most seriously subversive conducts rendering an employee wholly unfit for employment to mere technical default covered thereby”. 20. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 54 upon which Mr. Mukherjee himself has placed reliance upon held:— “5. Misconduct has been defined in Black's law Dictionary, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, it synonymous are misdemement, offence but not negligence or carelessness”. 7. Misconduct in offence has been define as: “Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. Terms embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act”. 21. P. Ramanath Aiyar's Law Lexicon, Reprint, Edition 1987 at page 821 defines misconduct thus:— “The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of 18 judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude; The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action where no discretion is left, except what necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence and unskilfulness are transgressions of some established, but indefinite, rule of action, where some discretion is necessarily left to the actor. Misconduct is a violation of definite law; carelessness or abuse of discretion under an indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act; carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act and is nesessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a public official, by which the right of a party have been affected. 6. Thus it could be seen that the word ‘misconduct’ though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, forbidden act a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained or bears forbidden quality or character, Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the 19 statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The pollice service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict. discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order.” 16. The charge-sheet dated 06.01.2022 alleged that the petitioner had disobeyed orders, neglected duty, and committed misconduct by furnishing false information in the recruitment process. However, upon perusal of the inquiry report and accompanying documents, it becomes evident that the inquiry officer himself acknowledged that the domicile and address details of petitioner were correctly mentioned in all supporting documents. The only inaccuracy was a single digit in the numerical code. The departmental authorities, however, mechanically treated this inadvertent error as deliberate falsification without establishing any motive or benefit accrued to the petitioner through the act. The finding of guilt, therefore, is not supported by substantive evidence and fails the test of reasonableness. 17. In the matter of Bhawar Singh Gurjar vs. Union of India, reported in (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 378, the High Court of Delhi has held as under : “22. It is the case of petitioner that he gained knowledge of his wrong mentioning of domicile in his online application form only when he received show-cause notice from the respondents; whereas respondents have pleaded that the factum of petitioner's wrong mentioning of domicile was complained on 28-3-2018. In fact, in terms of appointment letter dated 21-4-2017, petitioner had joined the training on 25-5-2017. As the appointment letter was issued after verifying the 20 documents furnished by the petitioner at the time of his medical examination, if at all there was an error or discrepancy in mentioning the domicile, it could have been corrected at the time of verification of documents in terms of Note III of Clause 2 of the Notice. It is not the case of respondents that domicile certificate was not furnished at the prescribed time or that the records pertaining to the permanent address of petitioner mentioned was other than given in the domicile certificate. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner was not able to complete his training program successfully. Rather, upon his successful completion of training, the petitioner was issued service certificate dated 9-8-2018 by the Training Battalion Assam Rifles. xxx xxx xxx 27. Thus, reading of the aforesaid shows that candidates belonging to the State of Assam are not required to submit domicile certificate, since the State of Assam is not issuing it. Even if petitioner had made an error in mentioning the wrong code (04) that of the State of Assam instead of the State of Rajasthan while filling the online application, it had escaped the notice of respondents at the time of verification of the original documents, as all the documents submitted by the petitioner mentioned Rajasthan as his permanent address. 28. In the light of aforesaid, we find that the error of wrong mentioning of “State/UT of domicile code as 04” in the application form was inadvertent and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer having been technological unfriendly, especially whence no objection was raised by the respondents at the time of his joining service and till completion of 2 years 4 months and 5 days of duty.” 21 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandan Rai vs. Union of India, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 5381 has held as under : “46. On bare reading of the section 11(1) above, minor punishments can be imposed or awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal anyone or more of the above punishments to any member of the force, whom the authority considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force. In my view, the misconduct is to be in its capacity as a member of the force which is considered to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty and remissness of discharge in duty. In other words the misconduct is to be during the course of his duty. 47. In the case of Sri. Thagen Das v. Union of India (supra) this Court held that it appears on prima facie examination of the provisions under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 the recourse to the said section could be taken inter-alia for misconduct of CRPF personnel in its capacity as a member of the force. In the instant case, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is not for an act after he joined service but for an act prior to his joining service in as much as the petitioner secured appointment on the basis of an invalid certificate. It also held that from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Saran v. IG of Police, it appears that in case of securing appointment on the basis of false information or false certificate, the appropriate action against such person is to be initiated under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, however, in the instant case, the authorities have taken recourse to powers provided under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 and not under the provisions of Rule 22 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, the respondent authorities were directed to take recourse to the provisions of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for taking such action against the petitioner as he was alleged to have secured appointment by furnishing false certificate in terms of the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Saran v. IG of Police (supra) as it held that recourse to provision 11(1) of the CRPF Act was inappropriate in the facts of the that case. 48. On careful perusal of the provisions of section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, in the considered view of this Court also, the recourse of the said section would be taken for misconduct of CRPF personnel in its capacity as a member of the force. Punishment can be imposed in lieu of or in addition to suspension or dismissal. In the present case, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is not for an act after he joined his service but for an act prior to his joining of service in as much as the petitioner got recruited on the basis of an alleged fake School certificate although he did not deserve to be considered for such a post, if it is proved in the departmental proceedings.” 19. From the comprehensive examination of the documents on record, it emerges that the alleged act of the petitioner was a case of simple negligence or oversight. The admit card, call letters, and correspondence records all bear the correct address of petitioner in Jammu and Kashmir. Even the removal order was dispatched to the same address. The explanation that the petitioner was influenced by the expression “border district” and mistakenly assumed the corresponding code as “19” (which matched numerically with another 23 region) appears plausible and credible. The act does not reflect any dishonest intent, deception, or manipulation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the act of petitioner, though negligent, does not constitute “misconduct” as defined in law and does not warrant major disciplinary action. 20. The Court must next consider whether the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The doctrine of proportionality, firmly embedded in administrative jurisprudence, mandates that the punishment should correspond to the gravity of the misconduct proved. 21. In Ranjeet Thakur v. Union of India, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that the punishment should not be so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court and has held as under : “25. Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the “decision-making process”. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court- martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court- martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and 24 perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [(1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL) : (1984) 3 All ER 935, 950] Lord Diplock said: “Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality’, the second ‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of ‘proportionality’ which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community;. . .” 22. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 442, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “15. It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 23. In light of the aforesaid discussions as well as while considering dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court when the present matter is being considered, it is revealed that the petitioner has served for over seven years with a clean record and has been found guilty only of an 25 inadvertent clerical error committed prior to joining service in respect of mentioning of incorrect residential code but the same was not deliberate and it was also not proved that while mentioning the incorrect residential code, the petitioner tried to mislead the department in order to obtain service as has been clear from this aspect that except mentioning incorrect residential code, he has stated his correct residential address in all the documents. There is no allegation of disobedience, moral turpitude, or any fraud or misrepresentation. Hence, the misconduct as stated by the authorities could not be found to be proved and imposition of the extreme penalty of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate and unsustainable in law. 24. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the act attributed to the petitioner does not amount to misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, nor is it supported by any finding of deliberate or fraudulent intent. The punishment of removal from service, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 25. Consequently, impugned order of removal dated 30.07.2022, the appellate order dated 21.11.2022, and the revisional order dated 11.04.2023 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and notional pay fixation. However, back wages for the period of non-employment shall be subject to separate consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE