The Delhi High Court has set aside the removal of CAPF constables over allegedly defective domicile certificates, holding that employees who had already joined service could not be dismissed on serious allegations without an enquiry and an opportunity to lead evidence. It ordered reinstatement with batchmate seniority, while permitting fresh action in accordance with law.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the reinstatement of constables whose services were terminated after allegations that their domicile certificates had been obtained using fake documents or false information. The Court found that the authorities had relied on show-cause notices without conducting an enquiry, even though the revenue authorities that issued the certificates had neither cancelled nor questioned them [Ex CT/GD Vikas Singh v. UOI & Ors. and connected matters].
A Division Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and Justice Gurvinder Pal Singh delivered the common judgment on October 29, 2026. The digitally signed copy bears a November 7, 2026 signing date. The reinstatement deadline runs from the judgment date, rather than the later signing date.
Recruitment allegations and the rival positions
The petitioners had applied under the Staff Selection Commission’s 2015 recruitment notification for Constable (GD) posts in the Central Armed Police Forces. After clearing the written examination, physical tests and medical examination, they received offers of appointment on different dates in 2017.
The judgment records that a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities in recruitment led to a charge sheet against 167 people, including the petitioners, and a recommendation to cancel the selection and appointments of 165 candidates. Those figures describe the wider investigation and recommendation; they are not the number of people granted reinstatement by this judgment.
The petitioners denied the allegations and argued that a decision to remove them had effectively been taken before the notices were issued. They maintained that the authorities had not identified or proved the allegedly false documents through an independent enquiry. The Union defended the action by relying on the seriousness of the CBI findings, the domicile requirements governing recruitment and the opportunity provided to answer the notices.
A notice was no substitute for an enquiry
Applying its earlier decision in Ex CT/GD Shiv Kumar, the Bench held in paragraph 19 that the petitioners, having joined the respective forces, could not be removed without an enquiry and an opportunity to produce evidence. A serious allegation of fake documents or false information could not be established merely by issuing a show-cause notice.
The Court also stressed that the domicile certificates remained valid as of the judgment. The issuing revenue authorities had not cancelled or questioned them, and the employers had not sought information from those authorities or called upon them to cancel the certificates.
A Ministry of Home Affairs communication dated January 14, 2020 was central to the finding of predetermination. It recorded approval of the CBI recommendation to cancel the candidature of 165 candidates. The Bench found that the decision to terminate the petitioners had preceded the notices inviting their defence.
In paragraph 20, the Court described the notices as “a farce and a smoke screen”. It questioned how an employer could establish such allegations through a notice alone, or an employee could rebut them merely by filing a reply without leading evidence.
Reinstatement, seniority and separate consideration of back wages
Under paragraph 22, the Court quashed the challenged termination orders and the appellate orders wherever passed. It directed reinstatement within ten weeks from October 29, 2026, with seniority at par with the petitioners’ batchmates.
Back wages were not awarded automatically. The petitioners may submit representations, which the authorities must decide in accordance with law within eight weeks of receiving them.
The Bench expressly left the authorities free to take fresh action in accordance with law. The judgment therefore grants relief against the defective removal process; it does not quash the criminal prosecution or finally exonerate the petitioners of the recruitment allegations.
Case Title: Ex CT/GD Vikas Singh v. UOI & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number: W.P.(C) 15507/2023 and connected writ petitions
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh and Justice Gurvinder Pal Singh
Decision Date: October 29, 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:10045-DB
Status: Final disposal; removal and appellate orders set aside, reinstatement with batchmate seniority directed; fresh lawful action left open.
