Case Background
The appellant had applied for recruitment as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He participated in the selection process and, after being selected, underwent training.
Almost seven months after this training, an anonymous complaint reached the CISF authorities. The complaint was sent in the name of two individuals, one Mr. Pawan and another Mr. Santosh. On receipt of this complaint, the CISF set an inquiry into motion.
The core allegation in the complaint was serious. It stated that, during the Physical Evaluation Test held as part of the recruitment, the appellant had not run himself. Instead, he had allegedly allowed one Sarvesh to run in his place, thereby using an impostor to clear the physical test.
Treating the appellant as a temporary engagee of the CISF, the authorities terminated his services. This led the appellant to file Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11059 of 2011 before the Patna High Court.
On 17 February 2014, the writ petition was allowed. The earlier order of termination was set aside. The Court made it clear, however, that the CISF authorities were free to take appropriate action against the appellant strictly in accordance with law, and as per the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.
After this order, the appellant was reinstated in service. At the same time, a regular departmental inquiry was continued against him. The present Letters Patent Appeal arose after the Disciplinary Authority again decided against the appellant, his appeal was dismissed departmentally, and a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court declined to interfere with those findings.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra, heard the Letters Patent Appeal. The main question was whether the departmental inquiry and findings, which held the appellant guilty of using an impostor in the Physical Evaluation Test, were legally sustainable.
During the departmental inquiry, the appellant was called upon to give his statement. The record showed that on 22 June 2010, the appellant gave a detailed statement before the Inquiry Officer.
In this statement, the appellant categorically admitted that when the time came for the Physical Evaluation Test, he did not run himself. Instead, because he was suffering from an injury in his leg, he requested his friend Sarvesh Kumar to run in his place. He admitted that Sarvesh took part in the run meant for the appellant.
While being cross-examined during the inquiry, the appellant was confronted with the fact that this act was unlawful. He accepted that he had done this because of unemployment and his poor financial condition. He stated that the pressure of getting a job had driven him to adopt such a method.
He also admitted that the running number mentioned on the plate used in the Physical Evaluation Test belonged to him. However, he accepted that the photograph which was pasted on the document relating to the Physical Evaluation Test was not his photograph.
Later, after the inquiry progressed and the Disciplinary Authority considered the material, the appellant tried to retract from his earlier statement. He alleged that he had been made to sign certain documents under pressure, and that his statement dated 22 June 2010 should not be treated as evidence against him.
The Disciplinary Authority examined both the incriminating material and the defence. On an assessment of the entire record, it concluded that the appellant was indeed guilty of the charge of having allowed another person to run in the Physical Evaluation Test in his place. It further held that the allegation of the appellant that his signature had been obtained forcibly on the statement was not correct.
In the appeal before the Division Bench, the appellant’s senior counsel focused mainly on the procedure of the inquiry. He argued that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, and that the principles of natural justice had been violated.
It was argued that the appellant was not given any proper opportunity to produce his own evidence. According to him, no specific date was fixed by the Inquiry Officer calling upon him to bring or produce further evidence in his defence. This, it was said, violated Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.
On the other side, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the CISF, pointed to the documents on record. He showed that the photographs did not match, and that the appellant’s own admission during the inquiry was sufficient to confirm that a different person had actually run the test in his place.
The respondents also pointed out that there was no allegation of mala fides against the officials who conducted the selection process. The appellant had successfully gone through the selection and training. It was only when the anonymous complaint came, almost seven months later, that the inquiry was started. This timeline indicated that there was no conspiracy to throw the appellant out, but that the authorities were responding to a serious complaint.
The Court accepted this reasoning. It noted that there was no material to suggest that the officials had acted with any bad intention. The only clear manipulation that appeared on record was the appellant’s own act in allowing someone else to run in his place.
However, the Court also made an important observation regarding the functioning of the selection team. It noted that as per the prescribed procedure for the Physical Evaluation Test, a person entering the arena where the test was to be conducted could not come out once he had entered. Yet, in this case, the appellant managed to leave the arena to drink water, and another person entered and ran in his place.
The Division Bench expressed surprise at this lapse. It stated that such a lapse on the part of the selection team, which was duty-bound to ensure a free and fair selection process, was questionable. The Court observed that this called for an internal inquiry by the Force itself, to examine how such an impersonation was allowed to take place.
Despite pointing out this lapse by the officials, the Court found that the evidence on record clearly showed that a different person had participated in the Physical Efficiency Evaluation Test on behalf of the appellant. The appellant’s subsequent bald denial of his recorded statement could not erase this evidence, nor did it inspire confidence.
The Court noted that both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had carefully assessed the entire record and concluded that the appellant had entered the service of the Force by dubious methods. This wrongdoing, in the Court’s view, rightly required correction.
The Division Bench held that if the appellant’s services had been terminated on the strength of such evidence, there was no ground for the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, to interfere.
The Court further observed that the factual findings did not suffer from perversity. There was sufficient material to support the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority.
Regarding the allegation of violation of natural justice, the Division Bench found no merit. It held that the record clearly showed that the appellant had been given an opportunity to participate in the inquiry and to cross-examine. It was open to the appellant to produce any evidence he wished in support of his defence.
Because the appellant had not used this opportunity to bring any evidence, he could not later turn around and claim that the entire process was unfair or that natural justice had been violated. The Court refused to convert his failure to act into a charge of bias or procedural illegality against the authorities.
In the end, the Division Bench held that there was no error, much less any legal error, in the orders passed by the departmental authorities or in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal was found to be without merit and was accordingly dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision of the Patna High Court is important for both government job aspirants and serving personnel. It sends a clear signal that impersonation in recruitment tests will not be tolerated.
The judgment shows that even if a candidate has already been selected and sent for training, later discovery of serious misconduct during the recruitment process can lead to termination.
It also clarifies that if a person has been given a fair chance to present his defence in a departmental inquiry, he cannot later claim violation of natural justice simply because he failed to produce evidence.
For security forces and other recruiting bodies, the judgment highlights the need to maintain strict control during physical tests and to plug any loopholes that might allow impersonation.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the appellant’s termination from CISF service, on the allegation that an impostor ran the Physical Evaluation Test in his place, could be interfered with by the High Court in appeal.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the departmental findings were based on adequate evidence, including the appellant’s own admission, and there was no legal error warranting interference. - Issue: Whether the departmental inquiry violated the principles of natural justice or Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, due to alleged denial of opportunity to produce defence evidence.
Answer: No. The Court found that the appellant had been allowed to participate in the inquiry and be cross-examined, and he could have produced evidence if he wished. His failure to do so could not be turned into a plea of violation of natural justice. - Issue: Whether the appellant’s later denial of his recorded statement could discredit the inquiry findings.
Answer: No. The Court held that a bald denial, without supporting material, did not inspire confidence and could not outweigh the recorded statement and other evidence on record.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not expressly cite or rely upon any earlier case law.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 201 of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16824 of 2014; reference also to C.W.J.C. No. 11059 of 2011.
Case Title: Rajiv Kumar v. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 551
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra
Advocates: For the appellant: Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General of India; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Central Government Counsel.
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a writ petition concerning termination from service after departmental inquiry in CISF recruitment.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
