Calcutta High Court Upholds Dismissal Of BSF Constable After 32 Years Service Over Forged Madhyamik Marksheet

The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant relief to a BSF constable who was dismissed from service for having secured his appointment on the basis of forged secondary examination documents. Justice Amrita Sinha held that once fraud at the entry stage is established, the very foundation of service becomes illegal, and no amount of sympathy based on long years of service can cure the defect. The Court stressed that an employee who does not possess the minimum educational qualification cannot be retained in service simply because he has served for decades. Such retention, the judge said, would undermine discipline and demoralise the force.

The writ petition was filed by Constable Santosh Sardar, who had joined the Border Security Force in 1989. Subsequent verification attempts between 1992 and 2001 revealed that the District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas repeatedly reported that no such student existed in the school's Madhyamik records matching the petitioner's claimed qualification. In 2002, he was arrested under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC for allegedly using forged documents. Although the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary process were delayed for years, the High Court noted that much of this delay was due to the petitioner's own interventions before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the SDJM Barasat and the Calcutta High Court in CRR 468 of 2005, all of which stalled the proceedings.

After the criminal revision was dismissed in 2019, the BSF sought permission to conduct a Security Force Court trial under Section 80 of the BSF Act, and original documents were obtained from the trial court in 2020. In 2021, a Petty Security Force Court tried him on five charges. Two of these—providing false information at the time of enrolment and producing forged documents—were proved. The petitioner admitted he had never passed the secondary examination and that he had procured the forged certificate due to financial hardship. He was sentenced to dismissal from service along with 15 months' rigorous imprisonment. His pre-confirmation and post-confirmation appeals were rejected by the Inspector General and Director General of BSF.

Before the High Court, Sardar argued that the punishment was disproportionate and that the delay in verification had prejudiced him. Justice Sinha rejected both pleas, holding that delay arising from the employee's own litigations cannot be used as a ground for relief and that once forgery is proved, the question of proportionality does not arise. The Court relied on Supreme Court rulings including Bank of India v. Abhinash D. Mandivikar and Supdt. of Post Office v. R. Valasine Babu to emphasise that fraud vitiates all and that long service cannot legitimise an illegal entry.

The judge underscored that judicial review cannot be stretched to grant sympathy in cases involving fraud. Once it is established that the employee lacked the essential qualification, the employer cannot be compelled to retain him. The Court found no procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings and noted that the petitioner had been given full opportunity to defend himself and had even admitted his guilt. Observing that the BSF had acted after repeated, consistent verification reports confirming the forgery, the Court concluded that the dismissal was legally sound.

Holding that the punishment could not be termed disproportionate in such circumstances, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the dismissal order.

Case: Santosh Sardar Vs. Union of India & Ors

Case No: WPA 25583 of 2022

Click here to read order