Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Sukumar vs Defence on 27 March, 2026
1
OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00550/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 23.03.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 27.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA ..MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
1. Shri. Sukumar,
S/o Baburao,
Aged about 30 years,
HKS (Safaiwala),
PA No. 63907-F,
Air Force Station, Bidar- 585 401,
(Under the order of 'Removal from Service'),
R/o Kolar (B) Tq
Bidar District- 585 403 ......Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri P. Sreedhara)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Represented by its Secretary,
DHQ PO,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. Chief of the Air Staff,
Air Headquarters (Vayu Bhavan),
Subroto Park,
New Delhi-110 011.
3. Senior Officer-in-Charge Administration,
HQ Training Command, IAF
Hebbal, JC Nagar Post, Near Makhri Circle,
Bengaluru- 560 006
KOMAL RANI
KOMA CAT Bangalore
2026.03.30
L RANI17:32:34
+05'30'
2
OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
4. Air Officer Commanding,
Air Force Station,
Bidar- 585 401
5. The Union of India
Ministry of HRD/Education,
Represented by its Secretary,
No. 301, Shasthri Bhawan,
New Delhi- 110 001
6. The Chairman/Secretary,
The Board of Higher Secondary Education- Delhi,
No. WZ- A-1/1, 2/3rd Floor,
Budella Market, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi- 110 018 .....Respondents
(By Shri. K. Gajendra Vasu for Respondent No. 1 to 5, Respondent No. 6- ex-
parte)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ......Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"a) CALL for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Order bearing reference No. BDR/ PF / 63907 / PC dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority Respondent No.4 as at ANNEXURE A-12 and Order bearing reference No.TC/10070/1/49/PC dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority Respondent No.3 as at ANNEXURE A-14, peruse the same and on perusal;
(b) ISSUE a Writ, Order or directions in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the Order bearing reference No. BDR/ PF /63907/ PC dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority Respondent No.4 as at ANNEXURE A-12 and Order bearing reference No.TC/10070/1/49/PC dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority Respondent No.3 as at ANNEXURE A-14, as KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 3 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE unjust, arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(c) ISSUE a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement.
Alternately ISSUE a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide an opportunity to the applicant to obtain the SSC Certificate (being the essential qualification for the post of HKS) from a recognized Board afresh and to submit the same within a reasonable period, and upon production of such valid certificate, the respondents shall reinstate the applicant and continue him in the service.
(d) ISSUE any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The facts in in a nutshell are as follows:
The applicant was appointed as HKS (Safaiwala) on 28.02.2017. In response to a complaint submitted by an employee regarding submission of fake certificates, a scrutiny was done and it was found that a few employees including the applicant had submitted fake educational certificates. The same was also confirmed by the clarification received from Directorate of Education. Subsequently, Board of Inquiry was conducted and based on the report of the inquiry a charge memo was issued to the applicant. On the basis of directions of the High Court of Karnataka, denovo inquiry was conducted and based on the findings, the applicant was removed from the service by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal of the applicant against the Orders of the KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 4 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Disciplinary Authority was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the applicant has approached this Tribunal through this OA for relief.
3. (i) The counsel for applicant submits that the applicant, in response to the Employment Notification participated in the selection process & was selected / appointed to the post of Safaiwala (under OBC category) on temporary basis vide letter No. BDR/660/2/PC dt. 28.02.2017 and was placed under probation for a period of Two years.
(ii) While the things stood thus, the Respondent No.4 initiated the process of verification of Educational Qualification Certificate of the applicant. The Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi vide letter No.DEL/32587/21/BHS dated 31.08.2021 confirmed the validity of its certificate/marks card issued to the applicant in 2016 as genuine.
(iii) However, the Respondent No.4, based on the Second Respondent's report dated 01.06.2021 that the verification of Secondary School Examination Certificate held by the applicant is found to be not genuine, issued the Order of Termination with one month's notice without holding any inquiry. This Order of termination was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench, which vide its order dated 23.06.2022 passed in WP No.201847/2021 quashed the above notice/order of termination dated 08.09.2021 granting liberty to the respondents to take action in accordance with law.
(iv) The Counsel for Applicant states that Respondent No.4 -Disciplinary Authority issued the Charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 5 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Rules 1965 imputing that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi which issued the SSC Certificate is not a recognized Board as clarified by Dte Edn, Govt of NCT Delhi, and that the said Board does not exist at their official address. Thus, by submitting the said certificate issued by an un- recognized Board, the applicant has violated Rule 3 Sub Rule 1 (i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1965. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter, not satisfied with the reply submitted by the applicant/charged official, ordered for a common Board of Inquiry.
(v) The Counsel for the applicant avers that during the course of the inquiry, the applicant's request to engage a law qualified Ex-servicemen as Defence Assistant was rejected by IO and hence, the inquiry was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench vide its order dated 27.01.2023 passed in WP No.200335/2023, granting liberty to the Respondents to proceed with the Disciplinary Inquiry after following due process. Despite the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court regarding appointment of Defence Assistant, the inquiry was continued & concluded in the absence of Defence Assistant, and the Disciplinary Authority, accepting the findings of the IO, passed the order in BDR/PF/63907/PC dated 20.06.2023 imposing the major penalty of 'Removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment under the Government". However, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench vide its order dated 25.07.2023 passed in WP No.201859/2023 and connected WPs quashed the above order of the Disciplinary Authority and remanded the matter to continue the Inquiry from the stage that it was on KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 6 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 21.01.2023. Subsequently the Disciplinary Authority cancelled the Order of Removal from Service and placed the applicant under deemed suspension wef 20.06.2023 and ordered for further inquiry.
(vi) On 13.10.2023, IO submitted his findings holding the charges as proved against the applicant and a copy of the Inquiry proceedings was made available to the applicant on 20.11.2023. The applicant submitted his representation on 07.12.2023. However, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the contentions raised in the representation, passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 imposing the penalty of 'Removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment under the Government". The applicant submitted his appeal dated 20.02.2024 to the Appellate Authority against the impugned order of 'Removal from Service' passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority vide Order bearing reference No.TC/10070/1/49/PC dated 02.07.2024 confirmed the major penalty of "Removal from Service" awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and disposed of the appeal as devold of merits.
4. Grounds for relief
(i) The Counsel for applicant states that the Order dated 23.01.2024 imposing the penalty of 'Removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment under the Government' passed by the Disciplinary Authority -Respondent No.4 is unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed and set aside. KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 7 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) He further states that the report of the Inquiry Officer is bald and without proper assessment of evidence. The Inquiry Officer solely relied on the documents made available by the Presenting Officer and the applicant's answer to the standardized questionnaire prepared by the Inquiring Authority and concluded the proceedings, holding the charge leveled against the applicant as proved. As the inquiry is conducted in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, the disciplinary proceedings and consequential order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority should be set aside.
(iii) The Counsel for applicant submits that the Disciplinary Authority neither appreciated that the applicant has already rendered more than 6 years of uninterrupted service nor the fact that while applying for the appointment to the post of HKS (Safaiwala), he had no knowledge regarding the non- recognition of the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi, and passed the impugned order of Removal from Service, without proper consideration.
(iv) The Counsel for applicant argues that the applicant had not submitted any forged or false certificate. The applicant's selection and appointment to the post of HKS (Safaiwala) under OBC category was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation on his part, but for the alleged lapse on the part of the concerned Educational Institution/Board and therefore, no fault can be attributed to him.
(v) The Counsel for applicant argues that the Disciplinary Authority before passing the impugned order of Removal from service, at least, could KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 8 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE have provided an opportunity to the applicant to obtain the SSC Certificate (being the essential qualification for the post of HKS (Safaiwala) from a recognized Board afresh and to submit the same within a reasonable period, in which case, the applicant could have endeavored to obtain the same from a recognized Board within the specified time period. Failure to do so has resulted in deprivation of applicant's livelihood.
(vi) He submits that the Disciplinary Authority has seriously erred in passing the impugned order without verifying from the concerned educational authorities as to whether the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi was a recognized one in 2010 when the SSC certificate was issued to the applicant.
(vii) The counsel for the applicant avers that the applicant is presently aged about 33 years and has no further opportunity of securing any Govt. employment. Hence, the action of Respondent No.4 in imposing the punishment of 'Removal from Service' without having any regard to the applicant's age is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
(viii) He further avers that the Appellate Authority did not consider the fact that the applicant had no knowledge about the non recognition of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. He did not furnish any forged or false certificate to secure Govt. employment. The Appellate Authority without considering the fact that he had submitted the educational certificate by the Board issued in 2010 in good faith while the Board was derecognised KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 9 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE in 2012, had passed the impugned Order dated 02.07.2024, merely based on the advisory of the 5th respondent dated 26.07.2019.
5. RESPONDENT
(i) The Counsel for the Respondents has filed his reply. The Counsel for Respondents submits that on the basis of complaint made by Shri Ananth Kumar that certain employees had submitted fake educational certificate issued by Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, the concerned authorities have scrutinized the same. On scrutiny a few employees were found to have submitted the educational certificates of the said Board which were fake, which included the applicant.
(ii) Further, clarification over the subject matter was received at this office vide letter No. Air HQ/23064/Griev/TC/PC-4 dated 01 Jun 2021(submitted as ANNEXURE-R2) which stated that said Board-was not a recognized Board and it did not exist at its official address in Delhi. Furthermore, Directorate of Education vide letter NO.DE- (Misc)/PSB/2017/22935 dated 12 Mar 2018 and Ministry of HRD has published a Notification mentioning that the said Board was dissolved with effect from 01 Jul 1962, as per earlier orders.
(iii) The Counsel for Respondent aver that directions were received from HQ TC, IAF to initiate action against the defaulters under Rule 11 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 which prescribes that "whenever it is found that a Govt. servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of Recruitment Rules, etc, for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 10 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, should not be retained in service".
(iv) Accordingly, a Board of Inquiry was ordered w.e.f. 13 Dec 2022 (ANNEXURE-A6) against the delinquent employee for production of fake educational qualification certificate at the time of his initial appointment. On being found guilty, he was removed from service we.f 20 Jun 23. The said employee had filed a writ petition No. 201799 of 2023 clubbed with WP No. 201859/2023 in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench for stay against the termination order.
(v) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench passed an order in respect of aforesaid writ petition for permission for engagement of the Defence assistant, in compliance of Principles of Natural Justice during the Board of inquiry.
(vi) In compliance of the Hon'ble court orders Kalaburagi Bench a fresh Board of Inquiry was again ordered which established that the applicant was guilty of charge framed against him and he was accordingly removed from service w.e.f. 23 Jan 24.
(vii) The Delinquent employee, thereafter, appealed against the Removal Order to the Appellate Authority, who after due consideration of the case, confirmed the Order of Termination issued by the Disciplinary Authority.
(viii) Refuting the contention of the Counsel for applicant that Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi was a recognised Board till 2018, the Counsel for Respondents invites our attention to the Advisory issued by KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 11 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE HRD ministry dated 26 Jul 2019 which only reiterated the earlier orders and it is extracted as below:-
"Further, it is abundantly clarified that no letters whatsoever have ever been issued this ministry recognizing the said entity le. Board of Higher Education, Delhi "The said entity le. Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi stands dissolved wef. 01.07.1962 vide Directorate of Education Delhi Administration Resolution's No. F 32(10)/62-Edn dated 30.06.1962. Therefore, if any other document(s) is/are produced by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi in relation to its recognition, then the same may be deemed to be fake and the veracity of the documents may be got confirmed from the concerned organisation/Ministry".
(ix) The Counsel for Respondents submits that the Penalty was imposed as per Rule 11 (viii) of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 which was in consonance with the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of District Collector, Vijayanagaram V/s M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990).
6. REJOINDER In response to the reply filed by the Learned Counsel for Respondents, the Counsel for the applicant again filed a rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has essentially reiterated the points which he had earlier mentioned in the OA. In addition he has stated the following:
(i) The applicant was appointed as HKS on 28.02.2017, while the Ministry of HRD Respondent No.5 released its Advisory on 26.07.2019 (Annexure R-5) stating as following:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 12 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "The said entity i.e. Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi stands dissolved wef 01.07.1962 vide Directorate of Education Delhi Administration Resolution's No.F.32 (1-0)/6-Edn dated 30.06.1962".
(ii) According to the Counsel for applicant, the above sequence of dates amply makes it clear that, the Respondent No.5 which is established solely to regulate the functioning of all such educational boards operating throughout the Country came to know about the non recognition of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi only in 2019 and released its Advisory on 26.07.2019, and based on which the 2nd Respondent issued the clarification on 01.06.2021. Whereas, the applicant who had secured his SSC certificate from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi in 2016 and was already appointed in 2017 i.e. almost two years prior to issuance of above Advisory. Therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to know about the recognition or non recognition of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi.
(iii) He avers that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi having its official website with address; No. 3rd Floor, WZ-A-1/1, West, Bodella Market, Budella, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, Delhi, 110018 is still operating its business, even on the date of filing this rejoinder, as could be seen from its official website on the internet which is cited as Annexure A-15.
(iv) According to Counsel for applicant, the applicant neither submitted any forged or false certificate, nor he had knowledge regarding the non-
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 13 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE recognition of the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi, while applying for the post of MTS.
(v) The Counsel for applicant invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench passed in District Basic Education ....Vs. Smt. Asha Pandey & Others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 06.03.2013 has granted the relief to the Respondents. The Hon'ble High Court, noting that the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi was fully recognized during the relevant period under Chapter 14 of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act by U.P. Intermediate Education Board and the said Board, was de- recognized only in the year 2012 by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board. (Annexure A-16).
7. ADDITIONAL REPLY In response to the rejoinder filed by the learned Counsel for the Applicant, the Learned Counsel for Respondent also filed an additional reply in which he has rebutted the averments of the Counsel for Applicant given by him in the rejoinder.
(i) The Counsel for Respondents points out that Directorate of Education in Delhi functions under the Government of NCT of Delhi, and not directly under Respondent No.5 i.e., Ministry of Human Resources Development (HRD now Ministry of Education). While the Ministry of Education oversees education policy at national level, the Directorate of Education in Delhi is responsible for implementing those policies and KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 14 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE managing the public school system within Delhi. It was aware of the fact of dissolution of Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi since 30.6.1962 as the Resolution was already put to effect by it from 30.6.1962. The Advisory mentioned that "Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi stands dissolved with effect from 01.7.1962 vide Directorate of Education Delhi Administration Resolution No. F 32(10)/62-Edn dated 30.6.1962." It is the responsibility of the applicant to confirm the validity of a Board of Education before joining any institution to pursue education.
(ii) According to Counsel for Respondent, the onus lies on the applicant to verify credentials of the education institutions before admission. The certificates/document issued by non-recognized Boards are not valid to apply for the post of Safaiwala as was clearly mentioned in the Employment Notification Apr 2016. The relevant extract is as follows:
"Matriculation pass or equivalent qualification from a recognised university or Board"
(iii) Clarifying the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench passed in District Basic Education....Vs Smt. Asha Pandey and Others, the Counsel for respondents stated that in this particular case, the applicant had also secured higher educational qualifications in terms of graduation, post graduation etc, from recognised Boards of Education of the Government of U.P. for appointment as teacher and hence, the issue of class 10 certificate given by the derecognised Board of Higher Secondary Education had lost its relevance.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 15 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
8. CONCLUSION
1. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc, and judgement of the Higher Courts which were brought on record by the respective Counsels. We have also gone through the Judgement of this Bench in OA No. 549/2024 which was delivered on 13.01.2026. It is seen that the facts and circumstances in this case are exactly the same as were in OA No. 549/2024. The relevant portions of the Judgement are reproduced as below for ease of convenience:
"..............................
8. Conclusion
2.The crux of the matter is:
(a)Whether the applicant was meeting the eligibility criteria for his appointment as Safaiwala as per the Appointment Notification in terms of educational qualification,
(b) Whether the relevant educational qualification certificate submitted by him was valid in terms of the laid down criteria.
(c)Even, if it is accepted that the certificate furnished by him was in good faith and without any knowledge or ill motive, whether he could be permitted to continue in service with an opportunity to pass the prescribed minimum educational qualification.
3.In this regard, it will be beneficial to peruse the relevant portions of the following documents/records brought to our notice:
(i) Appointment Order (Annexure A-1)
"BDR / 660/2/PC 21.09.2017
Shri Jaisur
S/o Moses
KOMAL RANI
KOMA CAT Bangalore
2026.03.30
L RANI17:32:34
+05'30'
16
OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
H No. 7-6-203 Janwada Road
Navadgeri Bidar-585401
APPOINTMENT ORDER
1. You are hereby appointed in the post of Safaiwala in the temporary capacity with effect from 28 Sep 17 against vacancy of UR category in the Basic pay of Rs. 18,000/- per month in the index 1 and level 1. You will also entitled to draw other allowances at the rates admissible and subject to the conditions laid down in rules and orders governing the grant of such allowances as promulgated by the Government from time to time. 2 The terms of appointment are as follows:-
(a) The post is temporary.
(b) You will be on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of appointment. The appointment may be terminated at any time during or at the end of the probationary period (including extended period if any) without any notice or pay in lieu in case your services are found to be unsatisfactory.
(c) You will be governed by the Field Service Liability Rules and will be liable for transfer to any place in India.
(d) You will be governed by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.
...........
(l) Your appointment is liable to be terminated in the event or reduction in the establishment or adverse report regarding your character and antecedents received against you from Police Department at a later date or for the reasons of furnishing false information regarding your caste / community, educational qualifications, age etc.
3. If any declaration or information furnished by you proves to be false or you are found to have willfully suppressed any material information, you are liable to be removed from service and any such other action as may be deemed necessary."
From the above extracts of the Appointment Order, it is very clear that the appointment of the applicant was liable to the terminated in case it was found that he had furnished false information regarding caste, community, educational qualification, age, etc. It is further mentioned in the Appointment Order that any information furnished by him which is subsequently found to be false, he was liable to be removed from service and also other action deemed necessary.
(ii) Subsequently on verification of educational qualification certificates of the applicant, the following communication was received which is produced as below:
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 17 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Annexure A-3 Page 20-21 "AirHQ/23064/Griev/TC/PC4 Re gistered Air Headquarters Vayu Bhawan New Delhi-110106 01 June 21 Clarification on Recognition of Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi
1.Reference HQ TC letter No. TC/10052/1/1/PC dated 17 Feb 20.
2. On perusal of the documents/reports which were received vide your letter No. TC/10052/1/1/PC/Pt-IX dated 25 Mar 21, has been observed that Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi is not a recognized Board as well as it does not exist at their official address in Delhi. Further, the Advisory of MHRD dated 26 Jul 2019, stipulated that any documents(s) is/are produced by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi in relation to its recognition, may be deemed to be fake..
3. In view of above, it is advised to initiate necessary action against the erring employee/employees in accordance with Gol Decision No. (2) under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Mahesh Kumar Singh DD/PC-4 For AOP"
From the above it is clearly established that the so-called Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi was a fake or non-existing entity. It is further established that the HRD Ministry had not issued any letter whatsoever recognising the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi and the letters which were produced were fake/fabricated.
(iii) In the light of the above, let us examine the certificate adduced by the Counsel for the applicant at page no. 61/61-A which is Annexure A-10 which reads as below:
"BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DELHI Recognized vide Certificate No. F-46-1/68-S.U No.DR/BHSE/957898DELHI Dt . 09/07/2019 To, Sriman AIR FORCE STATION KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 18 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BIDAR, KARNATAKA- 585401 Sir, your letter No. BDR/C 651/1/C dated 06.07.2019 received in the Board office in which you have sought information related to the above mentioned subject.
It may please be noted that;
Sri. JAISUR S/o Moses, Roll No.05264322 has privately passed 10th examination from the Centre SHRI SAI BABA EDUCATION SOCIETY HALLIKAED TO HUNABAD BIDAR in the year 2016 is Correct / True as per the record register held by the Board.
Seal and signature"
Since it is established beyond doubt that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi itself was a fake/ non-recognised entity, any certificate issued by it cannot be given any credence and carries no validity. Furthermore, it is seen that Annexure A-15 which is supposed to be the front page of the website of Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi refers to his recognition by a letter dated 26.02.1962. It is on record that the Board was derecognised a few months later on 01.07.1962.
(iv) It would be useful to cite the relevant paras of the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur vs Smt. Asha Pandey and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 135 of 2013) dt. 06.03.2013 cited as Annexure A-16 in the interest of justice which reads as below:
".......Learned counsel for appellant could not deny from the appeal record the fact that the certificates in controversy obtained by the respondent from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, on the date when the respondent was admitted in graduation and higher educational courses, on the date of admission in B.Ed course, and on the dates of selection and appointment as teacher, were recognised under Chapter 14 of Regulations framed under U.P.Intermediate Education Act by U.P. Intermediate Education Board. They were, however, de- recognized only in the year 2012 by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that the Government of India had de-recognized the Delhi Board in controversy way back in 1952. In this background learned counsel tried to justify the impugned orders passed on 16.9.2010, 15.5.2011 and 16.7.2011......"
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 19 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE From the above it is clear that even though the so called Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi did have recognition in 1962, which continued till 2012 only in Uttar Pradesh as per Chapter 14 of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act by U.P. Intermediate Education Board.
(v) This is further clear from the relevant portion of Annexure R-3 which is the communication from Directorate of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi reads as follows:
"NO.DE:15(Misc)/PSB/2017/22935 Dt . 12.03.20218 To, Ms. Shvani Naryan, Divisional Personnel Officer-1 East Central Railway (Estt.) Sonpur, Bihar-841101 Subject: Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi- Verification thereof.
Sir, With reference to your letter dated 07.02.2018 on the subject cited above, I am to inform you that Govt. OF-NCT of Delhi does not have any board of its own and Directorate of Education only grants recognition to schools under Delhi School Education Act & Rule, 1973 for regulating the education of Govt/Aided Private unaided Recognized Schools & does not grant any "recognition' to any board.
Further, it is submitted that no such board under the name of "Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi" has been recognized by this directorate as board are not recognized rather they are created under statute/subordinate legislation. As far as, this Directorate is concerned, there are only 3 boards relevant for Delhi- CBSE/ICSE and NIOS.
Yogesh Prat AP Deputy Director of Education(PSB)"
The above communication makes it abundantly clear that no such Board as Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi has been given any recognition by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCR. KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 20 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(vi) Regarding the contention of the Counsel for Applicant that he may be retained in service till such time that he completes and passes the required educational qualification, the matter has been adequately addressed in the communication cited as Annexure R-4 vide letter No. TC/10070/1/PC dt. 19.12.2019 by the Counsel for the Respondents which reads as below:
"REPRESENTATION FROM SHRI ANANTHA KUMAR
1. Annexed herewith is a copy of complaint by Shri Anantha Kumar submitted to Central Vigilance Commission received at this HQ through Provost channel.
2. The complaint was investigated by Provost and it was revealed that no such Board exists at their official address in Delhi. On further examination, it is found that "Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi" is not a recognized Board as clarified by Directorate of Education, Govt of NCT Delhi vide their circular No. DE. 15(Misc)/PSB/2017/22935 dated 12 Mar 18 and Advisory of MHRD dated 26 Jul 19 (copies annexed). Thus, there are grounds to proceed against the indvidual as per recruitment policy.
3. Gol decision No. (2) under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 prescribes "wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of Recruitment Rules, etc., for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service."
4. In the light of above facts, it is advised that necessary action be initiated against Smt Sunitha, Ayah, PA No 64293-S. K Ravinder Gp Capt SPSO"
(vii) Furthermore, the same is also not permissible as per Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The relevant CCS (CCA) Rules which is cited as Annexure R-6 reads as below:
"11. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has now been decided that wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the Recruit-ment Rules, etc., for initial recruitment in service or bad furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. / If he is a probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 21 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE service should be terminated. If he has become permanent Government servant, an enquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS. (CCA) Rules, 1965, may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed."
The contention of the applicant Counsel that the applicant was appointed on 21.09.2017 whereas the HRD Ministry (Respondent No.5) issued his advisory on 26.07.2019 ( part of Annexure A-3) stating that the entity Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi stand dissolved with effect from 01.07.1962 is not found to be correct on deeper scrutiny.
(viii) The counsel for Respondents in its additional reply very categorically brought out on record that concerned entity/Regulatory body was the Directorate of Education of Delhi which vide Administration Resolution No. F 32(10)/62- Edn dated 30.6.1962 had clearly dissolved the said Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi with effect from 01.7.1962. The Advisory of the HRD, dt. 30.06.2019 was merely a reiteration of the resolution passed by the Directorate of Education, Delhi mentioned supra which had dissolved the said Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi with effect from 01.07.1962.
(ix) Hence, it was the responsibility of the applicant to confirm whether the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi was a duly recognised and authorised Board or not. The onus was on the applicant to verify the credentials of the educational institution from where he had secured the concerned educational certificates and the same was also clearly mentioned in the Employment Notification of April 2016 cited as Annexure R-12.
9. From the above facts and circumstances the following conclusions can be safely drawn:
(a) Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi had been de-recognised by the Directorate of Education, New Delhi in 1962 itself.
(b) The Employment Notification had clearly stated that only Certificates from Boards/ Institutions which are recognised would be accepted for the purpose of recruitment/selection.
(c) The Appointment Letter itself very clearly mentions that furnishing of false information regarding educational qualification was sufficient ground for removal from service.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 22 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(d) Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules also clearly states that if an individual has furnished false information or produced a false certificate to secure appointment, he should be removed or dismissed from service and in no circumstances any other penalty should be imposed.
(e) During the course of the inquiry it was clearly proved that the Certificate furnished by the applicant was from an institution which had been derecognised long time back and hence, was not a valid certificate.
10. In the light of above, the OA has no legs to stand upon and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is ordered as follows:
(1) The OA is dismissed.
(2) No Costs."
9. As cited supra, the facts and circumstances of this case are exactly the same as has already been dealt with by this very Bench in OA No. 549 of 2024. It is a well settled principle that if a case is exactly identical in terms of facts & circumstances and law to a case earlier decided upon, the Judgement should also be similar to that of the coordinate Bench. In this regard, it would be beneficial to visit the relevant portions of the following Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(i) Judgement of Supreme Court in S.I. Rooplal and Anr Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644 vide Civil Appeal No. 5363-64 of 1997 dated 14.12.1999:
"...................................
11. Before us in these matters, Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties contended that the latter Bench of the tribunal committed a judicial impropriety in taking a contra view from the earlier judgment without Following the rule of precedent.........
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 23 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary... on 14 December, 1999 the same court observed thus:
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J., in Pinjare Karimbhai's case and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas 's case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J. observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr, v. Shri Ram Chand and Anr.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 24 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re- considered, lie should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
13. We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship.
.........................."
(ii) Judgement of Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta & Ors vs Modern Coop. G.H. Society Ltd. & Ors reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 vide Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003 dated 18.10.2010:
".............
17. A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of the administration of justice under our system. Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. (Vide: Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 372; Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30' 25 OA No.170/00550/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 97; and State of Tripura v. Tripura Bar Association & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 637).
18. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 480, this Court held that a bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. If the latter bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger bench......."
10. The Judgements of the Supreme Court cited supra, clearly state that if a Court has passed a Judgement in a case with a given set of facts & circumstances and law, then the same has to be honoured subsequently by the Coordinate Benches in all other similar cases. It is seen that the facts & circumstances in this case are exactly similar to the one already decided upon in OA No. 549 of 2024 dated 13.01.2026, by this Bench. We find no reason or grounds to differ from the same.
11. Hence, it is hereby ordered:
1. The OA is dismissed.
2. No costs Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) kr KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.30 L RANI17:32:34 +05'30'