$~41
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI

%							Date of Decision : 20.01.2026

+ 	W.P.(C) 16005/2022, CM APPL. 49938/2022
	SER MOHAMMED SK
.....Petitioner
				Through:	Mr. Pavan Kumar and Mr. Akhlesh 						K. Soni, Advs.

				versus

	CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
.....Respondents
				Through:	Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC, Mr. Animesh 						Rastogi, Mr. Shashank Pandey, Mr. 						Rajat Dubey, Advs., Mr. V.S Rawat, 						AC and Inspector Sanjay.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“a) Quash the office orders dated 08.6.2022, 29.6.2022 and 26.8.2022 passed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
b) Reinstate the Petitioner in service to the post of Constable in the Respondent-Department with all consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice; and”

2. The challenge is primarily to the office orders dated 08.06.2020, 26.08.2020 and 29.06.2022, whereby, the petitioner was removed from service without being disqualified for future employment and the review thereof against the said order has been rejected.
3. The petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable (Tradesmen), which includes Barber, Boot Maker, Cook etc. On 18.01.2017, he was recruited as Constable Tradesman (Barber) in the respondents/Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”) and was given an offer letter dated 18.01.2017.
4. On 07.02.2017, on a complaint made against the petitioner that he has submitted a fake Industrial Training Institute (“ITI”) certificate at the time of selection to the post of Constable Tradesman (Barber) and upon verification of the documents, it was found that the ITI certificate submitted by the petitioner was not genuine. The aforesaid resulted in a decision to conduct a departmental enquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and accordingly, a charge-sheet dated 20.03.2020 was issued to the petitioner wherein Articles of charges were framed against the petitioner.
5. It is a conceded case that the charges against the petitioner have been proved by the enquiry officer, which finally resulted in his removal from service without disqualification for future employment under the Government. The appeal and the review thereof have also been rejected by the said authorities.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that the qualification of ITI in the concerned trade is not an eligibility for appointment to the post of Constable Tradesman (Barber) and as such, even if certificate, is fake, the same would not have a bearing insofar as the appointment is concerned.
7. We are not impressed by such a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that, a fake certificate has been given by the petitioner, which resulted in prescribing certain marks in favour of the petitioner, resulting in his appointment. That would be sufficient enough for the respondents to initiate a departmental action against the petitioner and also for the enquiry officer to prove the charges against the petitioner resulting in his removal from service.
8. The plea of the equity raised by the counsel for petitioner also does not appeal to us, more so, in view of seriousness of the misconduct which has been proved. We are of the view that the present writ petition has no merit and is liable to dismissed. We order accordingly.  No costs.


V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JANUARY 20, 2026/sr




	
W.P. (C) 16005/2022                                                                                                              Page 3 of 3