Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048811
2023:PHHC:048811
CWP-24533-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24533-2018 (O&M)
RESERVED ON 16.03.2023
DATE OF DECISION:- 11.04.2023
DHARAMPAL
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
for the respondents.
*****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 24.07.2018,
Annexure P-13, passed by respondent No.3 and for a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing respondent No.3 to reinstate the petitioner in service
with all consequential benefits.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048811
2023:PHHC:048811
CWP-24533-2018 (O&M) -2-
In a nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he was
appointed as a driver with respondent No.3 on 13.08.1998 on contract
basis. His services were governed by Haryana Transport Department
(Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995. Vide order dated
23.11.2007, his service was terminated on the ground that his driving
license was found to be fake on verification. Petitioner filed a Civil Suit
challenging the termination order, which was dismissed vide judgment
dated 23.10.2012, Annexure P-4. Appeal, preferred by the petitioner, was
allowed by the learned District Judge, Kaithal by judgment dated
20.05.2014, Annexure P-5, and the petitioner was directed to be
reinstated in service on the original terms and conditions, without back
wages. Regular Second Appeal No. 5859-2014, filed by the respondents
was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2017, Annexure
P-6, directing respondent No.3 to issue a charge-sheet to the petitioner
and to conduct an inquiry as to whether the original license submitted by
the petitioner was valid or fake. Charge-sheet dated 18.12.2017,
Annexure P-11, was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted reply,
Annexure P-12. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing and
vide impugned order dated 24.07.2018, Annexure P-13, licenses
produced by the petitioner were found to be fake. Petitioner moved this
Court by filing a writ petition, which was withdrawn on 06.09.2018,
Annexure P-14, with liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars.
Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by the
respondents by filing a response, wherein it has been submitted that not
only the original license issued by the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad,
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048811
2023:PHHC:048811
CWP-24533-2018 (O&M) -3-
but also the license subsequently produced by the petitioner from the
Licensing Authority, Mathura were checked up and found to be fake. It
has been further submitted that as the petitioner did not possess a valid
driving license, his services have been rightly terminated.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that before termination,
no regular enquiry was conducted. Reliance has been placed by him upon
verification report dated 16.04.2003, Annexure P-10, from the office of
Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Mathura to submit that the driving
license of the petitioner was valid. Still further, it is his claim that on the
basis of instructions dated 20.08.2001, Annexure P-8, petitioner was
issued a valid driving license by the Kaithal Transport Authorities on
26.11.2001, Annexure P-9. Counsel submits that similarly placed
employees have been reinstated in service, whereas the petitioner has
been discriminated against.
Countering the submissions, State counsel has argued that in
the cases of the colleagues of the petitioner, the subsequent licenses
produced by them, were found to be valid and that is why they were
reinstated, whereas the petitioner possesses a fake driving license and his
services have been terminated.
I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
Both the driving licenses issued by the petitioner have been
verified. Along with the written statement, respondents have placed on
record a copy of letter dated 27.04.2007, Annexure R-1, received from
the Regional Transport Officer, RTA, Hyderabad Centre, whereby, the
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048811
2023:PHHC:048811
CWP-24533-2018 (O&M) -4-
respondents have been informed that DL No.2667/88 dated 15.04.1988
was never issued in the name of the petitioner. By letter dated
26.05.2018, Annexure R-2, Assistant Divisional Transport Officer
(Administration), Mathura informed respondent No.3 that driving license
No.-B-1031/MTR/1996 has not been issued as per their office record nor
any fee has been deposited in the name of the petitioner as per matching
in the cash section on 11.10.1996. From these documents, it is evident
that both the driving licenses on which the petitioner places reliance are
forged. It is apparent that the petitioner had got the appointment as a
Driver with the Haryana Roadways on the basis of documents, which
have been found to be fictitious.
Petitioner has played fraud with the authorities. Mere fact
that he had been in continuous employment for a period of nine years
before the termination order was passed pales into insignificance as the
very basis of the appointment of the petitioner is based on a fake
certificate. In Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Versus
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and others, (2008) 13 SCC 170, Supreme
Court observed as under:-
"14. Similarly, the plea regarding rendering of
services for a long period has been considered and rejected
in a series of decisions of this Court and we deem it
unnecessary to launch on exhaustive dissertation on
principles in this context. It would suffice to state that except
in a few decisions, where the admission/appointment was
not cancelled because of peculiar factual matrix obtaining
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048811
2023:PHHC:048811
CWP-24533-2018 (O&M) -5-
therein, the consensus of judicial opinion is that equity,
sympathy or generosity has no place where the original
appointment rests on a false caste certificate. A person who
enters the service by producing a false caste certificate and
obtains appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, as the case may be,
deprives a genuine candidate falling in either of the said
categories, of appointment to that post and does not deserve
any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. He who comes to
the Court with a claim based on falsity and deception cannot
plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise
equity jurisdiction in his favour.
15. An act of deliberate deception with a design to
secure something, which is otherwise not due, tantamounts
to fraud. 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. (See: R. Vishwanatha Pillai
Vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105, Bank of India
(supra), Addl. General Manager (supra) Derry Vs. Peek,
(1889) 14 AC 337, Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of
High School and Intermediate Education & Ors., (2003) 8
SCC 311 and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 605).
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048811
2023:PHHC:048811
CWP-24533-2018 (O&M) -6-
16. In Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors.
(2003) 8 SCC 319, this Court had observed that 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."
While passing the impugned order, respondent No.3 has also
considered the cases of other drivers working in the Fatehabad Depot and
found that they had another license, which was valid, when they joined
the service. However, this is not the position in the case of the petitioner
as both the licenses produced by him were found to be bogus.
In so far as the reliance of the petitioner upon the license
issued by the District Licensing Authority, Kaithal, Annexure P-9, is
concerned, it deserves to be noticed that this license was issued to the
petitioner on the basis of an affidavit submitted by him that his original
license is genuine. No driving test was conducted prior to the issuance of
this license. This license had been issued pursuant to the instructions,
Annexure P-8, issued by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, wherein
it was specifically provided that the licenses of all the drivers issued from
outside the State should be got verified by seeking confirmation and in
case no response is received from the licensing issuing authority within
thirty days, fresh driving license should be issued on the basis of the
affidavit of the license holder. Since the affidavit on the basis of which,
license was issued by the Licensing Authority, Kaithal is itself false,
petitioner cannot derive any benefit from it. Furthermore, it is matter of
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048811
2023:PHHC:048811
CWP-24533-2018 (O&M) -7-
record that the petitioner was engaged on a contract and was never
confirmed on the post of a Driver. Therefore, petitioner did not have the
protection of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
2016. In this background, there was no necessity to hold a regular
enquiry before passing the termination order. There is no infirmity in the
impugned order, which has been passed pursuant to direction passed by
this Court in its judgment dated 30.11.2017, Annexure P-6.
Finding no merit in the petition, it is hereby dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
11.04.2023 JUDGE
Kamal
Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/ No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048811
7 of 7
