Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash vs U.P.Power Corporation, Thru ... on 3 April, 2013
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5297 of 2002
Petitioner :- Om Prakash
Respondent :- U.P.Power Corporation, Thru Secretary, Lucknow & 4 Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Manik Sinha
Respondent Counsel :- S.M.K. Chaudhary,Amit Singh Bhadauria,P.N. Singh,Sanchit Asthana
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation.
Petitioner has come up in this writ petition claiming the relief for quashing of the orders of termination dated 29.6.1984 and 20.12.1999 by which his claim for reinstatement in service has been rejected. A further prayer has been made commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages w.e.f. 30.6.1984.
The petitioner claims that he was working as a Meth (Group D employee) with the U.P. Power Corporation. He submits that he was appointed in 1982 and his services were orally terminated on 29.6.1984 w.e.f. 30.6.1984.
The stand of the U.P. Power Corporation is that the petitioner was never appointed. He had joined service on the basis of a fake transfer order which was never issued by the corporation. Therefore, he is not entitle to any relief of reinstatement in service.
In connection with joining service on the basis of a fake order, a FIR was also lodged by the corporation.
Pursuant to it case crime no. 31 37 of 1996 (State Vs. Shiv Das and others) was registered. The said criminal case was decided on 30.9.1999 wherein petitioner was absolved under Section 420 IPC as he was not found instrumental in getting the fake order issued but nonetheless the order was held to be fake and one Sarvada Nand was held responsible for it.
In view of the above, it is not in dispute that the order on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming rights in service was a fake order. There is material on record to show that the said order was not a fake one.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the very basis on which the petitioner claims to be in service is found to be fake and is not a genuine document, he has no right to remain in service. Therefore, in the absence of any valid appointment of the petitioner he can not be permitted to continue in service.
The argument that the petitioner has been absolved in the criminal case and therefore is entitle to be reinstated has no substance, in as much as, the genuineness of the document on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming to be in service has been doubted and held to be fake.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Rudra Pratap Pandey 2010 (28) LCD 227.
The aforesaid decision makes a distinction between wrong appointment and a fraudulent appointment and it has been held that in case of fraudulent appointment no opportunity or enquiry is necessary as fraud vitiates all actions.
In view of the above, the aforesaid authority does not help the petitioner rather it goes against him.
Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.4.2013
SKS
