Allahabad High Court
Gaj Raj Singh vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 19 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239884
Reserved on: 16.12.2023
Delivered on: 19.12.2023
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3969 of 2023 (Leading writ petition)
Petitioner :- Gaj Raj Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Mishra,Ram Pravesh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Abhay Singh,Gautam Baghel,Prem Shankar Mishra,Rohan Gupta
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15865 of 2023 (connected writ petition)
Petitioner :- Gaj Raj Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Mishra,Ram Pravesh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gautam Baghel,Rohan Gupta,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions, thus, they are being decided by a common/composite order, for the sake of brevity, the Writ A No. 3969 of 2023 (Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India & 3 Others) is treated as leading writ petition and Writ A No. 15865 of 2023 (Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India & 5 Others) is treated as connected writ petition.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions, Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel who appears for respondent No. 2 in leading writ petition and respondents No. 2 and 5 in the connected writ petition, Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel who appears for respondent No. 3 and 4 in leading writ petition and respondents No. 3 and 4 in the connected writ petition. Notice on behalf of Union of India has been accepted in the office of Additional Solicitor General.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have made a statement at Bar that they do not propose to file any further response as whatever pleadings are already available on record they are self-sufficient for disposal of the writ petitions and, thus, with their consent the writ petitions are being decided at this stage.
4. The case of the writ petitioner, Gajraj Singh son of Sri Krishna Prasad Singh is that he was engaged as Engineer on contractual basis in the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad (in short 'IIIT'). Owing to his commendable work and unblemished record he was considered for appointment as Junior Engineer and by virtue of an office order dated 06.03.2010 he was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5000-8000 (old). He assumed the charge on the said date. He claims to have been made admissible to the advance increment by virtue of the office order dated 08.11.2012 and was confirmed as a Junior Engineer by virtue of the order dated 10.09.2013. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that he was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 06.02.2018 and was confirmed on the promotional post on 15.07.2020. As per the writ petitioner, while he was discharging the duties as Junior Engineer in the respondent-institute he received a show cause notice dated 19.08.2022 issued under the signature of the Director of the Institute regarding the allegation with respect to the fake certificate submitted by the writ petitioner for appointment in the institute. The writ petitioner claims to have submitted a letter on 31.08.2022 requesting 20 days' time for verification of the degree and the diploma certificate so possessed by him as he has sought information from the University, Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi. On 28 December, 2022, the writ petitioner claims that he has been placed under suspension by the orders of the Director of the Institute. The same led to filing of the leading writ petition wherein the order dated 28.12.2022 placing him under suspension by the Director, IIIT, Allahabad was sought to be quashed. As per the writ petitioner prior to placing the writ petitioner under suspension on 28.12.2022, the Director of the Institute issued a communication to the writ petitioner on 06.09.2022 to submit his reply within 15 days to which the writ petitioner responded on 20.09.2022 seeking 60 days' further time. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that he has preferred an application for the issuance of the duplicate degree/diploma certificate on 14.09.2022 after fulfilling all the formalities. However, during the pendency of the said proceedings he had been placed under suspension. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that on 11.01.2023 the Director of the Institute issued an office order appointing a three member committee for conducting inquiry with respect to the testimonials of the writ petitioner. A communication was issued on 29.01.2023 by the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee requiring the writ petitioner to be present along with all the documents followed by other communications. Thereafter, on 26.02.2023 a minutes were prepared wherein the writ petitioner took four weeks' further time to provide the inputs which was followed by another communication of the Inquiry Committee dated 26.02.2023. Eventually, the Inquiry Committee tendered his report dated 26.03.2023 holding that the degree which the writ petitioner submitted Diploma of Electronic Evening 1993 and B.E. (Electronic) Evening 2021 from Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi are forged and fabricated. On the basis of the same after issuance of a show cause notice now the services of the writ petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect on 21.06.2023 by an order of the Director of the IIIT, Allahabad.
5. Assailing the said order, the writ petitioner has filed the connected writ petition.
6. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Director, Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad cannot be sustained for a single moment as only on the basis of show cause notice and the reply submitted by the writ petitioner the services of the writ petitioner has been terminated without holding a regular disciplinary proceedings.
7. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that once the writ petitioner had been working in the institution since 06.10.2010 then the writ petitioner is entitled to certain protections which would stand bestowed in his favour by virtue of holding of a regular departmental inquiry while drawing a charge sheet, appointing an Inquiry Officer conducting disciplinary inquiry and then passing an order after hearing the writ petitioner. He submits that the entire procedure has been given a go-by and his services has been terminated only on the basis of show cause notice without holding any departmental inquiry.
8. According to Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner though the writ petitioner had made communications with the Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi, Registrar for verifying the degrees which he has produced for the purposes of obtaining appointment but on account of lethargy and apathy on the part of the University he could not obtain the necessary certification, the same became the basis and without waiting for and giving further opportunity to the writ petitioner, his services have been dispensed with.
9. Submission is that the entire procedure being vitiated, renders the order impugned vulnerable it is liable to be set aside, writ petitioner be reinstated in service and if the respondents so choose they are at liberty to conduct regular departmental inquiry.
10. Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel who appears for the respondent-institute submits that the present case is a classic example of fraud committed by the writ petitioner in perpetuity. According to him, the writ petitioner herein while seeking appointment had submitted an application form under the heading of a format of application dated 26/27.03.2009 wherein the column No. 5 pertaining to the qualifications he showed that he possessed B.E. (Electronic) Evening passed from Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi in the year 2001 followed by diploma (Electronic) Evening, 1994 from Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi. On the basis of the documents filed by the writ petitioner along with the application form, the institute considered his candidature and granted appointment to the writ petitioner, however, owing to a complaint the respondent-institute corresponded with the University and thereafter, the institute was informed by virtue of a communication dated 20.09.2022 that the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering Electronic has been found to be fake.
11. Sri Gupta, learned counsel has also invited the attention of the Court towards page 38 of the leading writ petition which happens to be the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering of Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi wherein the enrollment number has been shown to be 03-1680 and Roll No. 97-BE35 dated 25.10.2001 so as to contend that this was the same degree which the writ petitioner had submitted for seeking appointment as per the own case of the writ petitioner as apparent from Annexure 16 at page 76 of the leading writ petition, the writ petitioner had filed an application for issuance of a duplicate degree having the same enrollment number and roll number on 14.09.2022 and now as per the short counter affidavit of the University the same has been found to be forged. The submission is that once the writ petitioner had committed forgery and obtained appointment on the basis of a document which was totally non-existent which tantamounted to an act of fraud and misleading the institute then there is no requirement to conduct regular departmental inquiry particularly when it is not a case wherein the action has been taken without putting to the writ petitioner several show cause notices were issued to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner at each and every point of time lingered the matter but could not place the verifiable degree and, thus, the institute after getting confirmation from the University has proceeded to dispense with the services. Additionally, it is being sought to be argued that it is virtually not a case wherein any misconduct has been committed by the writ petitioner while working in the respondent organization but it is the act and the omission tantamounting to fraud committed at the time of selection and appointment. He seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of Narendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. 2021 (1) ADJ 654 wherein a Coordinate Bench after considering the law on the said subject had come to the conclusion that once the appointment has been obtained by fraud then it is void ab initio then there is no requirement to conduct departmental inquiry.
12. Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel who appears for the respondent-University has adopted the argument of Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel who appears for the respondent-institute and has submitted he has nothing more to add. According to him, as per the stand of the University, the Degree submitted by the writ petitioner is forged and not verifiable.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
14. The facts of the case are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had submitted an application form seeking appointment as Junior Engineer on 26/27.03.2009 wherein he had based his claim upon the qualification of B.E. (Electronic) Evening and diploma (Electronic) Evening from Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner was accorded appointment on the basis of the said qualifications. The parties are also in agreement that the degree which the writ petitioner claims to have submitted for seeking appointment having enrollment No. 03-1680 Roll No. 97-BE35 Bachelor of Engineering from Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi.
15. Apart from the same, it is the own document of the writ petitioner appended at page 108 of the paper book being an application of the connected writ petition submitted by the writ petitioner dated 14.09.2022 sought duplicate mark sheet of the aforesaid degree.
16. Notably, the writ petitioner has not brought anything on record to substantiate that the Jamia Millia Islamia Central University New Delhi had verified the said degree as rather to the contrary in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-University dated 28.05.2023 in para 5 it has been specifically mentioned that the degree submitted was a forged. Now in the light of the said undisputed position a question arises whether non-holding of regular departmental inquiry would be fatal for the respondents. Obviously, the answer would be "No". Once the writ petitioner has not placed on record any document verifying his degree which he claims to have been submitted for seeking appointment by the respondent-institute and there happens to be a communication dated 20.09.2022 of the Registrar of the respondent-University coming up with a stand that the degree submitted by the writ petitioner is forged then in the opinion of the Court there is no requirement to hold regular departmental inquiry. Even otherwise there has been sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice as this Court finds from the record that several show cause notices were issued to the writ petitioner to which the writ petitioner only took time to get the degrees verified, however, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the degree stood verified. Apart from the same, there is no requirement to conduct regular departmental inquiry as the basis of dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner is not the misconduct committed during the course of employment in official capacity but it is prior to appointment at the stage of selection wherein on the basis of forged degree, appointment has been sought. The said issue may not detain the Court any more particularly in view of the judgment in the case of Narendra Kumar Tripathi (supra) wherein it has been mandated that the appointment obtained by presenting forged mark sheet/degree renders the appointment void ab initio and there is no need to conduct disciplinary inquiry before terminating the services. Since there is nothing on record to show that the degree obtained by the writ petitioner was verifiable and the stand of the University is already there certifying the fact that the degree obtained by the writ petitioner is forged, thus, in the circumstances writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
17. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Order Date:- 19.12.2023
Rajesh
