Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailesh Singh Bhadouriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
1 WP. No. 4715 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4715 of 2014
SHAILESH SINGH BHADOURIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi- Senior Advocate with Shri Ashwini Johri - Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief (s):
It is humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the
impugned order of termination dated 24.7.2014 Annexure P/1 passed by
respondent Additional Director (Administration), Health Services may
kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.
Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted. Costs be
awarded.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by impugned order dated
24.07.2014, the Additional Director (Administration), Directorate of Health
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
Services/respondent No.3 has terminated the services of petitioner without
following due procedure of law as prescribed under M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity "the Rules").
3. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of
Lower Division Clerk by order dated 15.07.1988 passed by Chief Medical &
Health Officer, Narsinghpur. Thereafter, by order dated 31.5.1989, the services of
petitioner were absorbed in the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer,
Morena in Universal Immunization Center, Morena. In compliance of the
aforesaid order, petitioner submitted his joining at Morena on 09.06.1989. The
Chief Medical and Health Officer, Narsinghpur wrote a letter dated 06.04.1990 to
Chief Medical and Health Officer, Morena thereby sending the service record of
petitioner to Morena with a request to send the acknowledgment. After
completing 26 years of service, a show-cause notice dated 09.05.2014 was issued
by respondent No.4 alleging that an enquiry is being conducted by Lokayukt
organization with regard to his appointment. In compliance of the directions given
by the Lokayukt Office, the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Gwalior
Division, has submitted the Enquiry Report pointing out that original appointment
of petitioner appears to be suspicious. Even the name and address of father of
petitioner in the appointment order was not mentioned. Even it was found that the
appointment order of petitioner does not bear the signatures of the then Chief
Medical and Health Officer, Narsinghpur who was the appointing authority and
no record pertaining to the appointment of petitioner was also found in the office
of Chief Medical and Health Officer & District Malaria Officer, Narsinghpur.
Furthermore, it was also found that from the date of his appointment i.e.
21.07.1988 to 08.06.1989 and 08.07.1990 to 31.03.1995, his service book was not
found. On 15.07.1988, two appointment orders were issued and difference
between the dispatch number of both the appointment orders is approximately
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
three thousand which also makes the appointment order of petitioner suspicious
and accordingly a notice was issued to petitioner to show cause as to why
departmental action may not be taken against him and as to why action under
Rule 10(4) of the Rules may not be taken against him.
Petitioner filed his reply and claimed that his appointment is absolutely
genuine and no forgery was committed by him. It is submitted that although
petitioner had made a complaint that he has no faith in the Enquiry Officer but in
spite of it the impugned order dated 24.07.2014 has been passed by Additional
Director (Administration), Directorate of Health Services/respondent No.3,
thereby declaring the original appointment order of petitioner dated 15.07.1988 as
null and void and his services were termained.
4. Challenging the impugned order, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner
that once the show cause notice was issued thereby calling upon petitioner as to
why minor penalty may not be imposed, then respondents could not have declared
the original appointment order as null and void. It is further submitted that
services of peitioner cannot be terminated without conducting full-fledged
enquiry becuase termaination is a major penalty.
5. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent/State.
It is submitted that the order of termination was passed after affording proper
opportunity to defend. Petitioner himself had appeared with the documents and
service reocrd. It is submitted that on receipt of complaint in the office of
Lokayukt, petitioner was issued show-cause notice and he was called upon to
submit his explanation and record his statement but did not appear. One of the
show-cause notices was issued on 29.08.2013 which was duly received by
petitioner. Another show-cause notice was also issued on 07.05.2014, thereby
calling upon petitioner to file original documents but he deliberately did not
appear and did not submit the documents for the reasons best known to him. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
receipt of show-cause notice dated 07.05.2014 has been filed as Annexure R-3.
The then Chief Medical and Health Officer, Narsinghpur who was the appointing
authority had specifically stated that the appointment order of petitioner was
never isssued by him or from his office. It is submitted that it was found that
petitioner was never appointed by order dated 15.07.1988 and on the basis of
forged documents he had got himself absorbed in the office of Chief Medical and
Health Officer, Morena, in Universal Immunization Centre, Morena.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The moot question for consideration is as to whether petitioner was ever
appointed as LDC by order dated 15.07.1988 in the office of Chief Medical &
Health Officer, Narsinghpur or not?
8. It is the case of petitioner that in the Enquiry Report there is no whisper
about the absorption order issued by the State Government, however, the moot
question for consideration is as to whether the initial appointment order i.e. dated
15.07.1988 is a forged document or not? Counsel for petitioner did not argue the
aforesaid aspect. The main thrust of the arguments of counsel for petitioner is that
before terminating the services of petitioner, a full-fledged departmental enquiry
was required.
9. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether a deparmental
enquiry is required in a case of fraud or not?
10. The question is no more res integra.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Meghmala & others vs. G.Narasimha
Reddy & others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 has held as under:
"It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an
order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the
competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of the
law. Fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et. Jus nunquam
cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper
over all the secenturies. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the
fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made
misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not
perpetuate the fraud."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of
Uttaranchal and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363, has held as under:
"It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order
by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent
authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law.
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"
13. The Supreme Court in the case of District Primary School Council, West
Bengal vs. Mritunjoy Das and others reported in (2011) SCC 111, has held as
under:
"9. On going through the records placed before us, what we find is that
the contesting respondents herein inflated their marks in order to
obtain admission in the Primary Teacher's Training Institute. Had the
marks not been inflated in the aforesaid manner, the contesting
respondents would not have got the admission in that particular
Institute as it is disclosed from the records. Therefore, the admission
sought for was through an illegal means which is to be deprecated. The
conduct of the contesting respondents being such, we cannot find fault
with the course of action taken by the appellant herein. It is not that the
contesting respondents were not given any opportunity of hearing.
They were given a show-cause notice and were also given an
opportunity of hearing which opportunity they did not accept although
they submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. There is, therefore, no
violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case. If a
particular act is fraudulent, any consequential order to such fraudulent
act or conduct is non est and void ab initio and, therefore, we cannot
find any fault with the action of the appellant in dismissing the service
of the contesting respondents. In this context we refer to the decision
of this Court in Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and
Intermediate Education [(2003) 8 SCC 311] for the proposition that no
person should be allowed to keep an advantage which he has obtained
by fraud."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
14. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs.
Dhirjo Kumar Sengar reported in (2009) 13 SCC 600, has held as under:
"18. Legality of grant of a valid appointment was dependent upon the
proof that the respondent was the adopted son of Chittaranjan Singh
Sengar. He not only failed to do so, the materials brought on record by
the parties would clearly suggest otherwise. His application for grant
of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the Joint
Director of Education. He did not question the legality or validity
thereof. He, it can safely be said, by suppressing the said fact obtained
the offer of appointment from an authority which was lower in rank
than the Joint Director viz. the Deputy Director. When such a fact was
brought to the notice of the Deputy Director that the offer of
appointment had been obtained as a result of fraud practised on the
Department, he could, in our opinion, cancel the same.
19. The respondent keeping in view the constitutional scheme has not
only committed a fraud on the Department but also committed a fraud
on the Constitution. As commission of fraud by him has categorically
been proved, in our opinion, the principles of natural justice were not
required to be complied with."
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices and
others vs. R. Valasina Babu reported in (2007) 2 SCC 335 has held as under:
"Equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,
envisage that all the citizens of India shall get an opportunity to be
considered for appointment in all the civil posts. Clause (4) of Article
16, however, provides for an exception. When a public employment is
obtained in a vacancy reserved for a particular category of candidate,
he must fulfill the criteria laid down therefor. When the vacancy was
to be filled by a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate for
whom the post was created, the candidate must be one who belongs to
that category. If the selectee does not fulfill the said basic criteria, his
appointment cannot be allowed to be continued. Once the certification
the basis whereof the respondent obtained employment stood
cancelled, no question of allowing him to continue in service would
arise, if he had been appointed on the basis of such a certificate. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
appointment collapses."
16. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Parul vs. Uttar Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine P & H
900 has held as under:
"12. From a perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
evident that the appellant sought to seek appointment on the post of
Lower Divisional Clerk on the strength of a false 'O' Level certificate
and, therefore, attempted to obtain appointment by playing a fraud. It
is settled law that where any benefit is obtained by a person by
playing fraud then such benefit cannot be sustained in the eyes of law
as fraud vitiates everything. The Supreme Court 21 in Meghmala v. G.
Narasimha Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383, while laying down the
consequences of fraud by a party, has held as under:
"28. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant
gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing
fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts
ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu
(dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. (1994) 1 SCC 1 :
AIR 1994 SC 853). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay [1956] All
ER 349), the Court observed without equivocation that "no
judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to
stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels
everything."
29. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s.
GAR Re-Rolling Mills (1994) 2 SCC 647 : AIR 1994 SC 2151;
and State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481, this
Court observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable
jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal
fraud as the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of
good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the
crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law."
30. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers. (1992) 1
SCC 534 : AIR 1992 SC 1555, it has been held as under:--
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn
proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is
a concept descriptive of human conduct."
31. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh
(2000) 3 SCC 581 : AIR 2000 SC 1165, this Court observed that
"Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam
cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its
temper over all these centuries.
32. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that
dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit
to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and
in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud.
(See District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social
Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura
Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655; Union of India v. M.
Bhaskaran 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100; Vice Chairman, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325;
State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar
(2007) 1 SCC 80; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar
Refining Company (2007) 8 SCC 110 : AIR 2007 SC 2798; and
Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751).
33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an
egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of
courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a
design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The
expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to
the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an
advantage. (Vide Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration AIR 1963
SC 1572; Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996)
5 SCC 550; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Suryachandra Rao
(2005) 6 SCC 149 : AIR 2005 SC 3110; K.D. Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481; and Regional
Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir
(2008) 13 SCC 170)."
18. When the facts of the instant case are examined in the light of the
aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is evident that no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
fault can be found with the act of the authorities in terminating the
services of the appellant, and the decision of the learned Single Judge,
as undisputedly the appellant sought to obtain appointment by
producing a fraudulent document. In such circumstances, as fraud
renders the appointment itself void ab initio and non est, and the act of
the appellant renders her ineligible for being considered for
appointment, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
that this act of fraud on the part of the appellant be ignored and
overlooked, and she be granted appointment on the strength of the fact
that she possessed the necessary qualification for appointment, is
misconceived. The action that has been taken against the appellant has
been taken on account of fraud committed by the appellant and,
therefore, the question of her being eligible or otherwise does not
arise as her attempt to obtain appointment by playing fraud disentitles
her to be considered for appointment or to claim appointment.
19. It would be travesty of justice to force the respondents to retain a
person like the appellant in service when they have lost all faith and
trust in her on account of the fraud committed by her. The appellant
cannot invoke or claim any relief even on account of equity and
sympathy because of her act of fraud."
17. Thus, it is clear that fraud vitiates everything and in case of fraud a full-
fledged departmental enquiry is not required. It is true that the show-cause notice
was issued to petitioner, thereby calling upon him to explain as to why minor
penalty may not be imposed but in view of the fact that appointment order
contained forged signature of appointing authority as well as signatures of
petitioner were not found in the attendance register maintained in the office of
Chief Medical & Health Officer, Narsinghpur coupled with the fact that no
payment was made to petitioner after his appointment in the office of Chief
Medical & Health Officer, Narsinghpur, it is clear that petitioner was never
appointed as LDC in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Narsinghpur
and by relying upon a forged and concocted document, he successfully got
himself absorbed in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Morena in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7378
Universal Immunization Centre, Morena. Under these circumstances, it was not
necessary on the part of respondents to conduct a full-fledged departmental
enquiry.
18. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of considered opinion that no illegality was committed by respondents by
declaring order dated 15.07.1988 purportedly issued by Chief Medical & Health
Officer, Narsinghpur as null and void and as a consequence thereof terminating
the services of petitioner.
19. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
