Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Santosh Sardar vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2026
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :- Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha
WPA 25583 of 2022
Santosh Sardar
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Ujjal Ray, Adv.
Mr. Binit Kumar, Adv.
For the Union of India :- Mr. Ajit Kumar Chaubey, Adv.
Heard on :- 18.03.2026
Judgment on :- 01.04.2026
Amrita Sinha, J.:-
1. The petitioner was serving in the Border Security Force (BSF) as
Constable (general duty). He joined service on 28th February, 1989. At
the time of document and character verification from the office of the
District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, Barasat, the authority was
informed that no such person can be traced. A criminal case was
registered against him in year 2002 u/ss. 458/420 IPC. The petitioner
was arrested on 11th March, 2002 and released on bail on 26th April,
2002.
2. A Petty Security Force Court proceeding was initiated against him in
the year 2021 on five charges. He was found guilty in respect of two of
them and was dismissed from service on 15th May, 2021. Appeal
2
preferred against the order of dismissal was rejected by the Inspector
General on 20th July, 2021 and post confirmation appeal before the
Director General also stood rejected on 4th December, 2021.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and prays for a direction upon
the authority to set aside the entire proceeding as the same is contrary
to the Border Security Force Act, 1968 hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act' for the sake of brevity.
4. The primary ground for challenge of the proceeding is the lackadaisical
attitude of the authority in initiating the proceeding long after the
petitioner joined service. The cause of action for issuing the charge
sheet arose at the time of entry of the petitioner in the Force in the
year 1989; whereas the proceeding which led to his dismissal was
initiated only in the year 2001 and the order of dismissal passed in the
year 2021. By the said time the petitioner had already served the
Force for nearly 32 years and is at the verge of his superannuation in
the year 2027.
5. It has been contended that had the authority detected the guilt of the
petitioner at the very initial stage, he could have found some other job
to sustain his life and living. He has a son who is suffering from
thalassemia and a huge amount of money is required for his treatment
on regular basis.
6. It has been submitted that the allegation against the petitioner
regarding forgery of mark sheet could not be conclusively established
3
at the time of enquiry as the headmaster of the school, at the time of
cross-examination, was unable to prove his own identity of being the
headmaster of the school. Contention of the petitioner is that if the
person deposing against him does not have the right or authority to
depose, then the evidence given by such person cannot be relied upon.
7. It has been argued that as the person deposing as headmaster did not
have any knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case, his
evidence cannot be taken into consideration.
8. It has been argued that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner
after blemish free service in the Force for more than three decades, is
harshly disproportionate.
9. Prayer has been made to set aside the entire proceeding resulting in
the impugned punishment, or if punishment is at all to be imposed,
then a minor punishment may be considered for imposition.
10. In support of the prayer made herein above, learned advocate for the
petitioner relies on the order dated 10th October, 2024 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 17863/2022 (Prithvi Raj vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) wherein, on similar facts, the Court was pleased
to opine that the punishment of removal from service after thirty-eight
years of service on allegation of submitting forged mark sheet at the
time of entry in service is excessive and not commensurate with the
misconduct committed by the charged officer.
4
11. The submission and prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the learned
advocate representing the respondents. The report on affidavit filed by
the Deputy Inspector General, Sector Headquarter, Border Security
Force has been relied upon.
12. The report mentions that the petitioner was enrolled in BSF as
Constable (general duty) on 28th December, 1989. After completion of
his basic training, he was posted to 63Bn BSF where he served from
October, 1990 to June, 1995. He was thereafter posted to Water Wing
BSF, Srinagar from June, 1995 to March, 1998. Thereafter he was
posted to Water Wing, Madhopur.
13. The documents relied upon by the petitioner at the time of entry in
service were forwarded for verification to the competent authorities. In
1992 an information was received from the District Magistrate, North
24-Parganas, Barasat mentioning that after proper verification, it has
been established that the petitioner was not a student of the school
mentioned in the certificate relied upon by him. The certificate was
again sent to the authority for re-verification.
14. When the petitioner was posted in Madhopur, during scrutiny of his
service records, it was revealed that the character and antecedents of
the petitioner had not been verified. The credentials of the petitioner
were again sent to the District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas for
verification. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (IB), West Bengal,
by memo dated 15th November, 2000, requested Water Wing,
5
Madhopur to forward photocopy of the admit card, mark sheet and the
school certificate of the petitioner for necessary examination.
15. The petitioner was asked to produce his original documents but he did
not submit the same on time. The petitioner, on 23rd April, 2001,
addressed a letter to the Commandant HQ Water Wing, Madhopur
stating that he completed his education from Deoganga, district North
24-Parganas and requested the authority to verify the same.
16. On the basis of such request the authority again approached the
District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas for verification of the character
and antecedents of the petitioner at the address mentioned by him.
Photocopy of the Madhyamik admit card, mark sheet and the school
certificates submitted by the petitioner were forwarded for verification.
By a communication dated 18th September, 2001, the District
Magistrate, North 24-Parganas intimated that, no such person could
be traced out and he was not a student of the school as mentioned in
the attestation form.
17. The petitioner was arrested by the police in March, 2002 for producing
false admit card and mark sheet at the time of enrolment in BSF and a
criminal case under Sections 468/420 IPC was registered against him.
On account of his arrest the petitioner was placed under suspension
on 12th April, 2002 and he re-joined duty on 3rd June, 2002 after
overstaying his leave for 28 days.
6
18. The authority in July, 2002 again approached the Secretary
(Examination) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for
verification of the educational documents of the petitioner but no
fruitful result was obtained. The petitioner was found to have
committed offence under Section 23 of the Border Security Force Act,
1968 for providing false answer on enrolment and disciplinary
proceeding was initiated against him.
19. During Record of Evidence (ROE) the petitioner admitted that in 1986
he appeared in the secondary examination but he failed in the same.
As he belonged to a very poor family and his father was not alive, he
solely had to take the responsibility of the entire family including his
widow mother, wife, brother and two sisters. He was not in a position
to re-appear in the matriculation examination. The petitioner
submitted that he may be awarded any punishment except dismissal
from service as he had crossed the age to get any job.
20. Relying upon Section 80 of the Act, a prayer was made by the
authority before the Criminal Court where the criminal case against
the petitioner was pending to try the said case before the Security
Force Court (SFC). Challenging the steps taken to transfer the criminal
proceeding to SFC, the petitioner approached the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 9768 of 2003
seeking for an order to restrain transfer of the criminal proceeding to
SFC. Vide order dated 14th October, 2003, the said writ petition stood
dismissed as ‘infructuous’.
7
21. When the process for transfer of the criminal case to SFC was pending
before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, the petitioner
filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
before this Court being CRR 468 of 2005 on 18th February, 2005. The
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 21st February, 2005 was pleased to
stay all further proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court till
disposal of the Criminal Revision Application.
22. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, on perusal of
the stay order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, rejected the prayer
for transfer of the criminal case by passing order on 20th March, 2005.
23. The petitioner tendered application seeking voluntary retirement on
three occasions with effect from 31st January, 2013, 30th June, 2015
and 31st January, 2019 but due to the pendency of the
criminal/disciplinary proceeding against him, his application was not
accepted.
24. Vide order dated 18th September, 2019, CRR 468 of 2005 with CRAN
5557 of 2017 stood dismissed directing the authority to proceed with
the disciplinary proceeding. After dismissal of CRR 468 of 2005 an
application under Section 80 of the BSF Act was again filed before the
learned Court at Barasat and the said application stood allowed. The
original educational certificates were received by the authority from
the Trial Court in September, 2020.
8
25. Though initially ROE was conducted in respect of only one charge
under Section 23 of the Act, but as before the learned Criminal Court,
Barasat charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections
463/468/471/420 IPC, as such, fresh disciplinary proceeding had to
be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was tried by a Petty
Security Force Court (PSFC) with effect from 30th April, 2021 to 15th
May, 2021 in respect of five charges, out of which. two charges stood
proved, and he was sentenced to be dismissed from service and to
suffer imprisonment for fifteen months.
26. The pre-confirmation petition filed by the petitioner stood rejected and
the confirming authority affirmed the findings and sentence of the
disciplinary authority but the sequence of the sentence stood changed.
The petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
fifteen months and to be dismissed from service. The petitioner was
dismissed from service with effect from 15th May, 2021 and taken into
custody on 4th August, 2021.
27. According to the respondents the sentence imposed upon him is just
and proper. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.
28. I have heard and considered the rival submissions made on behalf of
both the parties.
29. On perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition it appears
that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunities to disprove
the allegations levelled against him which he failed to do. On the
9
contrary, he admitted his guilt and accepted that he failed in the
secondary examination and was not in a position to re-appear in the
said examination. Being aware of the fact that he was ineligible to get
into service, the petitioner fraudulently forged his mark sheet and
produced the same at the time of credential verification.
30. As the documents relied upon by the petitioner were not found in the
records of the authority, the petitioner was asked to provide originals
of the same. On further verification of his educational certificates, the
documents relied upon by him could not be traced out. It is only then
that the authority came to a conclusive finding that the concerned
documents were forged ones.
31. The submission of the petitioner that the evidence of the headmaster
cannot be relied upon cannot come to his aid. According to the law of
evidence, facts admitted need not be proved. Here, the petitioner
himself accepted and admitted that the documents relied upon by him
were not genuine. The investigating agency verified the documents
from its source, i.e. the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education
and was unable to find out the document relied upon by the
petitioner, leading to the conclusive finding that the same was a forged
one. As the statutory authority opined against the document relied
upon by the petitioner, the evidence of the headmaster will not make
much of a difference.
10
32. As after repeated verification processes the certificates relied upon by
the petitioner were not found to be genuine, accordingly, there is
hardly any scope to revisit the evidence relying on which decision was
taken by the disciplinary authority to dismiss the petitioner from
service and further undergo imprisonment.
33. The submission of the petitioner that, had the verification process
been conducted in proper time, then the proceeding could have been
concluded earlier during his initial service career and he could have
got the time and would have been within the age to look for a different
job to maintain his life and livelihood, is not convincing enough to
interfere with the sentence imposed upon him.
34. It is common practice in service jurisprudence that, any time after
appointment, if it is detected that the document relied upon by the
candidate is false, fake or forged, then his service becomes liable to be
terminated. In the case at hand, the certificate of the Board
examination relied upon by the petitioner, has been proved to be a
fraudulent one. Under such circumstances, the authority did not have
any other option but to dismiss him from service, particularly in view
of the fact that, the petitioner does not possess the minimum
educational qualification to get the job. The employer cannot retain an
employee if he does not possess the basic qualification to get the job.
35. The petitioner was well aware of the fact that he practiced fraud from
the very moment he applied for getting the job by disclosing his
11
educational qualification as Madhyamik which he actually never
passed. Without the minimum qualification, the petitioner was
ineligible to even apply for the job, far less, being selected for the
same.
36. The recruiting authority has every right to initiate disciplinary
proceeding against an employee, at any point of his service career, the
moment it is detected that fraud was practiced at the time of entry in
service. Here, the verification process was initiated in the year 1992
but due to several litigations pending before various fora, the same
stood finally concluded in July, 2002 and thereafter the disciplinary
proceeding was initiated which concluded on 15th May, 2021.
37. It cannot be said with conviction that the delay in concluding the
process of verification and thereafter the trial was solely attributable to
the respondent authority. In fact, the petitioner approached the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, the learned Trial Court, Barasat and
also before the High Court, Calcutta by filing Criminal Revision
Application and the said litigations consumed a considerable period of
time. Due to pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, repeated
requests made by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement also
could not be accepted.
38. Submission of the petitioner that the punishment imposed is grossly
disproportionate, also does not appear to be proper. The authority
could have taken a stricter stand by taking a decision to recover the
12
salary paid to the petitioner as long as he was in service, which he is
not entitled to, being ineligible for the same. The authority has
dismissed him from service along with imprisonment for fifteen
months which means that he would not be entitled to receive any
further amount after his dismissal. Had the salary received by the
petitioner for the entire period he was in service been directed to be
recovered, the same would have been a harsher punishment than that
imposed upon him.
39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India & Ors. vs. Abhinash
D. Mandivikar & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 3395 held that
fraud vitiates the most solemn proceeding in any civilised system of
jurisprudence. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made knowingly or without belief in its
truth.
40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supdt. of Post Office & Ors. vs. R.
Valasine Babu reported in AIR 2007 SC 1126 held that if the
employee played fraud in obtaining appointment, he should not be
allowed to get the benefits thereof as the foundation of appointment
collapses.
41. Prithvi Raj (supra) did not deal with the issue of fraud being played at
the time of securing appointment. In my considered opinion, fraud is
the deciding factor in the instant case. Had the petitioner got the basic
qualification to get the job, then he could have prayed for his retention
13
in service. In this case, the petitioner is ineligible to remain in service
and the only option is to dismiss him. The employer cannot permit an
ineligible person to remain in service after his ineligibility stands
confirmed.
42. Once the employer has taken a decision to impose some punishment
after considering the gravity of the case, it is not proper for the Court
to interfere with the same lightly. The power of judicial review cannot
be stretched to such extent to always show sympathy to an errant
employee by modifying the punishment imposed by the employer. If
such a view is taken by the Court, then there is every possibility that
the employer will be demoralized and it may not be possible for the
employer to maintain honesty, sincerity and discipline at the place of
work.
43. In Gridko Limited & Anr. Vs. Sadananda Dolui & Ors. AIR
2012 SC 729 the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial
review cannot be extended if the action of the authority is not
shown to be vitiated by the infirmities of illegality, perversity,
unreasonable, unfair or irrational and so long as the action is not
demonstrably in outrageous deviance of logic. The Writ Court would
do well to respect the decision under challenge.
44. The petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate that the action of
the authority is in any manner illegal, perverse, unreasonable,
illogical, unfair or there has been violation of the principles of natural
14
justice. In the absence of any of the above, it is not proper for the
Court to interfere with the impugned sentence.
45. In view of the discussions made herein above, the Court is not inclined
to entertain the writ petition and allow the prayer of the petitioner.
46. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
47. No costs.
48. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously on compliance
of usual legal formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)