Sri Ram Alias Bhikham Singh vs Chairman Cum Managing Director ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 5686 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Reserved
 
Court No. - 24
 

 
Writ Petition No. 7962 of 2010 (S/S)
 

 
Sri Ram alias Bhikham Singh 		.......	Petitioner
 

 
Versus
 

 
Chairman-cum- Managing Director,
 
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. 
 
and others   					.......	Opposite parties
 

 
along with
 
Writ Petition No. 3183 of 2010 (S/S)
 

 
Sri Ram alias Bhikham Singh 		.......	Petitioner
 
Versus
 
Chairman-cum- Managing Director,
 
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.
 
and others   					.......	Opposite parties
 

 
*******
 
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauria, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

Writ Petition No.7962 of 2010 (S/S) has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of removal dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bahraich (opposite party no. 3), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service on the ground that he had manipulated his name in the official record by cutting and overwriting.

Writ petition No. 3183 of 2010 (S/S) has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow him to join his duties on the post of "Kaushal Shramik" and also pay the salary regularly along with other benefits to him.

Since the common questions of facts and law are involved in the above-captioined writ petitions, as such, they are being decided by a common order.

Shorn of unnecessary details the facts of the case are as under :-

The petitioner was initially engaged as daily wager on muster roll basis with the opposite parties in the year 1995. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.3.2002, he was appointed on the post of "Shramik" in the Electricity Distribution, Sub-Division-II, Bahraich in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bahraich. On 25.4.2005, the Divisional Selection Committee had selected the petitioner and other persons on the post of "Kushal Shramik". On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Selection Committee, the Executive Engineer (opposite party No.3) had appointed the petitioner and other persons on the post of "Kushal Shramik" vide order dated 26.4.2005.

According to the petitioner, on 17.12.2009, when he was on duty, he became seriously ill. Subsequently, after obtaining leave from the opposite parties, the petitioner underwent treatment of his illness of Anemia and Typhoid. He remained ill till 2.3.2010 and, thereafter, on 3.3.2010, he was declared fit by his medical consultant to resume his duties and to that effect, the Medical Consultant had issued a fitness certificate on 3.3.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner had made several request to the opposite parties to permit him to resume his duties but the opposite parties had not paid any heed towards his request for resuming his duties. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite parties, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 3183 (S/S) of 2010 before this Court

It has been stated that while entertaining writ petition No. 3183 (S/S) of 2010, this Court, vide ad interim order dated 20.5.2010, gave liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with relevant documents within a week from the date of receipt a certified copy of the order and the Executive Engineer (opposite party No.3) was directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, by speaking and reasoned order within a period of two weeks thereafter. In pursuance to the ad interim order dated 20.5.2010, the petitioner had submitted a representation along with the relevant documents on 22.5.2010 and the opposite party No.3-the Executive Engineer has decided the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 8.6.2010, stating therein that enquiry is pending against the petitioner on the complaint of one Amrendra Singh, resident of Hamlet-Domhar Mafi, Police Station- Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur regarding manipulation of his name in the service record, therefore, it is not appropriate to retain him in service.

Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in writ petition No. 3183 (S/S) of 2010, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties on 2.8.2010, in which, it has been mentioned that on the complaint of one Mr. Amrendra Singh, son of Sri Ram Bahal Singh R/o Village Domhar Mafi, P.S. Sahanwa, District- Gorakhpur in respect of fake name and educational documents of the petitioner, an enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and for verification, a report has been sought from District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, Block Development Officer, Sahjanwa and Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sahjanwa, District- Gorakhpur and Block Develoment Officer, Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur have sent their reports dated 28.5.2007 and 14.6.2007, respectively, in which it has been stated that Bhikham Singh, son of Udit Singh is not resident of Village Domhar Mafi, Sahjanwa, District-Gorakhpur. On receipt of this report, a letter dated 29.1.2008 was issued to the petitioner, asking him to submit his documents for verification. Pursuant to the letter dated 29.1.2008, the petitioner has submitted his documents on 10.6.2008 before Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Gonda Circle, Gonda and after verifying the documents submitted by the petitioner on 10.6.2008, the Superintending Engineer had exonerated the petitioner from the allegations made by the complainant and recommended for permitting the petitioner to resume his duties. Thereafter, the opposite parties have appointed the another Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in respect of the same complaint without intimating the petitioner and the newly appointed Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and passed impugned order of removal dated 12.10.2010 without giving any opportunity to submit his defence in violation of principles of natural justice.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 7962 (S/S) of 2010, assailing the order of removal dated 12.10.2010.

While challenging the order of removal dated 12.10.2010, Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order of removal dated 12.10.2010 has been passed in violation of the Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which provides before imposing major penalty and before imposing any major penalty, charge-sheet has to be supplied to the delinquent employee and a written statement has to be called in defence and along with the charge-sheet documentary evidence shall be furnished and after submission of written statement date, time and place has to be fixed for conducting enquiry and full opportunity should be provided to defend his case but in the present case, neither charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner nor any enquiry report has been supplied to petitioner, nor any show cause notice had been issued nor any opportunity had been afforded to defend his case, prior to passing the major penalty of removal from service.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after exonerating the petitioner by the first Enquiry Officer, another Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was removed from service without affording opportunity to defend his case. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's name i.e. Sri Ram alias Bhikham Singh, son of Ram Udit Singh, find place in the record of Primary School situated at Domhar, Tehsil and District - Gorakhpur from where he had completed his education upto Class V as is evident from the School Leaving Certificate issued by Primary School-Domhar, Tehsil and District-Gorakhpur dated 7.2.2010. It is also submitted that the petitioner's name i.e. Sri Ram alias Bhikham Singh, son of Ram Udit Singh is also the same in the record of the family register. In these backgrounds, he submitted that the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Primary School, Domhar, Tehsil and District - Gorakhpur and copy of the family register issued by Village Development Officer, Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur in which petitioner's name was mentioned Sri Ram Singh alias Bhikam Singh, shows that petitioner is the person, who is also known by name of Bhikham Singh and worked more than 15 years in the office of the opposite parties but on the false and frivolous complaint with ulterior motive made by one Amrendra Singh, petitioner has been removed from service without affording opportunity to defend his case.

In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana and others : 2009 (27) LCD 1711 and this Court's judgment rendered in Kamla Charan Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2009 (27) LCD 130 and Neeraj Bharadwaj Vs. Marathwada Institute of Technology Engineering College, Bulandshahr & others : 2002 (1) LBESR 1042 (All.).

Refuting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauria, learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that one Shri Amrendra Singh, son of Shri Ram Bahal Singh has made a complaint dated 10.9.2006 to the effect that the petitioner is working with the department on the basis of a fake name and the fake documents and has committed forgery with the department. On receipt of the complaint, an enquiry was conducted and letters dated 15.11.2006 was issued to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, Block Development Officer, Vikas Khand Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur and also letter dated 29.11.2006 was issued to the Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, requiring them to submit its report regarding allegations levelled in the complaint made by Mr. Amrendra Singh. In pursuance to the aforesaid letters, the aforesaid authorities have submitted their reports with regard to the petitioner. It was found in the enquiry report that the petitioner's name is not recorded in any of the official documents; any person of the name of the petitioner is not the resident of Village Domahar Mafi, District Gorakhpur; the School Transfer Certificate submitted by the petitioner was proved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur; there was difference in the transfer certificate issued by the Primary School Domahar Kshetra Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur and the photocopy of the same submitted by the petitioner with the department; on scrutiny of the document, it was revealed that in the admission register, at serial No. 175, the name of one Shri Ram son of Shri Ram Udit Singh is mentioned with the date of birth as 12.1.1961; but no transfer certificate was issued by the School in the name of the petitioner.

Elaborating his submission, Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that in order to conduct the proper enquiry into the matter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer has sent a notice to the petitioner vide order dated 29.1.2008, requiring him to present before him along with the relevant record. The Enquiry Officer has also submitted the required documents to the department vide letter dated 30.1.2008. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter/notice, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 10.6.2008 and, thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has recorded his statement. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 2.8.2010, stating therein the documents submitted by the petitioner before the enquiry officer Shri P.K. Jain and the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of securing the appointment with the department were different and as such, the petitioner has secured the appointment in the department on the basis of the submission of the fake and fabricated documents by making overwriting in the document. After receiving the enquiry report, the department sent a letter dated 12.10.2010 with registered post to the petitioner, stating therein that enquiry officer has submitted its report.

In the aforesaid backgrounds, submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the petitioner was provided the full opportunity of hearing before passing the order of the removal. He submitted that the disciplinary authority before passing the order has complied the Rules relating to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against an employee and after complying with the same, the impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority. Furthermore, prior to passing the order of removal, the service rules was strictly followed by the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the pleadings, it comes out that the petitioner was removed from service on the ground of fake and forged educational documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of securing appointment on the post in question.

With reference to the submission that the enquiry was not fair and the report of the Enquiry Officer should not be believed, it is relevant to refer to some decisions of the Supreme Court.

In this context, the Supreme Court vide its decision in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and others : (1991) 2 SCC 716 has held that the principles of natural justice will depend on the nature of inquiry and the peculiar circumstances of each case.

The Supreme Court in many of its decisions, had answered the issue as to whether leniency can be shown by Courts in cases of persons who gave fake forged educational certificates at the time of appointment and securing employment by fraud or deceit. Some of the decisions were also rendered in the context of persons gaining entry with false Certificates.

In Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar : [(2005) 7 SCC 690], the Supreme has held in paragraphs 11 and 12 as follows:

"Para 11: ".... Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. This Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra dealt with the effect of fraud. It was held as follows in the said judgment: (2005 (7) SCC pp. 613-14, paras 12-16) 12. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. * * *

13. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002 (1) SCC 100), Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (2003 (8) SCC 311), Ram Chandra Singh case (2003 (8) SCC 319) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. (2004 (3) SCC 1).

14. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (See Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996 (3) SCC 1) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu case (1994 (1) SCC 1).)

15. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav case.

16. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713 : (All ER p. 345-C) (1956) 1 QB 702).

No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. (p. 722) [19]. These aspects were recently highlighted in State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao (2005 (6) SCC 149). Therefore, mere delayed reference when the foundation for the same is alleged fraud does not in any way affect the legality of the reference.

Para 12: "Looked at from any angle the High Courts judgment holding that Respondent 1 employee was to be reinstated in the same post as originally held is clearly untenable. The order of termination does not suffer from any infirmity and the High Court should not have interfered with it. By giving protection for even a limited period, the result would be that a person who has a legitimate claim shall be deprived the benefits. On the other hand, a person who has obtained it by illegitimate means would continue to enjoy it notwithstanding the clear finding that he does not even have a shadow of right even to be considered for appointment."

The Supreme Court in the decision in Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF : [(2006) 2 SCC 541] observed in paragraphs 9 to 11 as follows:

Para 9: "In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala it was observed as follows: (SCC pp. 116-17, para 19) 19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service, the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud. Para 10: Though the case related to a false [caste] certificate, the logic indicated clearly applies to the present case.

Para 11: This is a case which does not deserve any leniency otherwise it would be giving premium to a person who admittedly committed forgery. In the instruction (GO No. 29 of 1993), it has been provided that whenever it is found that a government servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules, etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment should not be retained in service. After inquiry as provided in Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 if the charges are proved, the government servant should be removed or dismissed from service and under no circumstances any other penalty should be imposed."

Further, the Supreme Court in the decision in Superintendent of Post Offices v. R. Valasina Babu [(2007) 2 SCC 335] observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as follows:

Para 14: "The question in regard to the effect of obtaining appointment by producing false certificate came up for consideration in State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar wherein this Court opined that the authorities concerned would have jurisdiction to go into the said question and pass an appropriate order. The effect of cancellation of such caste certificate had also been noticed in the light of a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar wherein it was held that if the employee concerned had played fraud in obtaining an appointment, he should not be allowed to get the benefits thereof, as the foundation of appointment collapses.

Para 15: In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, it might not have been necessary to initiate any disciplinary proceeding against the respondent."

In Additional General Manager Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde [(2007) 5 SCC 336], Hon'ble Supreme Court, once again reiterated the principles laid down in R. Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [(2007) 5 SCC 336] and the following passage found in paragraph 10 may be usefully extracted:

Para 10: "An identical controversy was again examined in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala which is a decision rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges. The employee in the aforesaid case had got an appointment in the year 1973 against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste. On complaint, the matter was enquired into and the Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated 18-11-1995 held that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste and the challenge raised to the said order was rejected by the High Court and the special leave petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court. He then filed a petition before the Administrative Tribunal praying for a direction not to terminate his services which was allowed, but the order was reversed by the High Court in a writ petition. The employee then filed an appeal in this Court. After a detailed consideration of the matter this Court dismissed the appeal and para 15 of the Report, which is relevant for the decision of the present case, is reproduced below: (SCC p. 115) 15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of the law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Castes. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to this Court, he has disqualified himself to hold the post. The appointment was void from its inception. In the light of the above discussion, the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be dealt with leniently must be rejected."

On the question that there is no misconduct, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. J. Ahmed [1979 (2) SCC 286]. The following passages found in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the judgment may be usefully extracted:

Para 9: "The words act or omission contemplated by Rule 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules have to be understood in the context of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954 (Conduct Rules for short). The Government has prescribed by Conduct Rules a code of conduct for the members of All India Services. Rule 3 is of a general nature which provides that every member of the service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Lack of integrity, if proved, would undoubtedly entail penalty.... If Rule 3 were the only rule in the Conduct Rules it would have been rather difficult to ascertain what constitutes misconduct in a given situation. But Rules 4 to 18 of the Conduct Rules prescribe code of conduct for members of service and it can be safely stated that an act or omission contrary to or in breach of prescribed rules of conduct would constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. This code of conduct being not exhaustive it would not be prudent to say that only that act or omission would constitute misconduct for the purpose of Discipline and Appeal Rules which is contrary to the various provisions in the Conduct Rules. The inhibitions in the Conduct Rules clearly provide that an act or omission contrary thereto so as to run counter to the expected code of conduct would certainly constitute misconduct. Some other act or omission may as well constitute misconduct...."

[Emphasis added]

Para 11: "Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce v. Foster1). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers)]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza. The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Strouds Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:

Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct."

Now, the question to be decided in this case is as to whether the educational certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged or fake one and whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement.

The petitioner, who was initially engaged as daily wage on muster roll basis, was appointed on the post of "Shramik" in the Electricity Distribution Sub-Division-II, Bahraich. Subsequently, he was selected for the post of "Kushal Shramik" by the Selection Committee. Subsequently, one Shri Amrendra Singh son of Shri Ram Bahal Singh has made a complaint dated 10.9.2006 regarding the fake and forged documents submitted by the petitioner for securing appointment in the department. On receipt of the complaint, the department has decided to verify the genuineness of the educational certificates furnished by the petitioner at the time of his joining the department. Accordingly, a report was sought from the Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur and the Block Development officer, Vikas Khand Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur. In pursuance thereof, they enquired into the matter and submitted their report, stating therein that the petitioner's name is not recorded in any of the official documents; any person of the name of the petitioner is not the resident of village Domhar Mafi, district Gorakhpur; and there was difference in the transfer certificate issued by the Primary School Domhar Kshetra, Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur and the photocopy of the same submitted by the petitioner with the department. It was also stated in the report that in the admission register, at serial No. 175, the name of one Shri Ram son of Shri Ram Udit Singh is present and his date of birth is 12.1.1961. At that time, the fraud played by the petitioner came into light. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry and after recording the statement of the petitioner and affording opportunity of producing necessary documents, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report. On receipt of the report, a notice was also sent to the petitioner. Thereafter, after satisfying the fact that the petitioner has obtained the service on producing false and fabricated educational certificate, he was removed from service vide impugned order.

The petitioner has assailed the order of removal from service, mainly on the ground that the order of removal is void, because no enquiry had been conducted before taking such decision by the opposite parties. A careful scrutiny of records, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioner is that he obtained the employment on production of a false educational Certificate, therefore, the petitioner has rightly been removed from service. The decisions relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable for deciding the issue of removal from service, as the genuineness of the certificate is found to be fake and obtained by fraud.

It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite parties had not taken the decision to cancel the appointment of the petitioner in one fine morning or in hasty manner, rather reports were called for from the various authorities of the State with regard to the genuineness of the Certificate furnished by the petitioner, who in turn confirmed that the certificate so submitted by the petitioner does not belong to the petitioner at all, but to one Shri Ram, son of Shri Ram Udit Singh. Therefore, looking at any angle, it has been proved beyond doubt that the petitioner obtained employment by forging and fabricating the Certificate.

As stated hereinabove, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arinash D. Mandirkar (supra) has clearly held that if an employee concerned having played fraud in obtaining an appointment, he should not be allowed to get the benefits thereof, as the foundation of appointment collapses and it was also held therein that fraud vitiates everything and no protection can be extended to a person, who obtains employment on fraud, nor any benefit can be extended based on such recruitment.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., reported in (2003 (8) SCC 319) has defined the word "Fraud" as under:

"15......"Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata."

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less reinstatement in service.

In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date: 23.12.2015

Arvind/Ajit/-