# Javed Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1533
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-29
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1632 of 2013
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/javed-khan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54682
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

4 All. Javed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1533
24. Both the Courts-Below have failed to re-calculate the land surplus in accordance with
direction issued by this Hon'ble Court and hence not duly complied with the remand order, hence
both the orders are liable to be set aside.

25. It is very strange that specific direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court has not been
taken into account and ignored while passing the orders impugned by the Courts-Below. It is duty
of the Courts Below that while passing any order by the Courts-Below, remand order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court / Superior Authority must be taken into account and pass order in accordance
with the direction issued by the Superior Authority.

26. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that both the Courts-Below have passed the orders impugned without complying with the
remand order of this Hon'ble Court dated 12.01.1984 in which a direction was specifically made to
recalculate the land of the petitioners.

27. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 10.09.2002 passed
by the Commissioner (opposite party no.2) and the order dated 31.03.2001 passed by the Prescribed
Authority are quashed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1533
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 1632 of 2013
Alongwith
Special Appeal No. 1634 of 2013
Alongwith
Special Appeal No. 388 of 2014

Javed Khan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of not holding departmental enquiry before terminating the appointment, which was obtained by
using forged certificate.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Punishment - Termination - Appointment on the post of Excise Constable -
Charge of using forged documents of educational qualification was leveled - Certificate of
'Adhikari Pariksha', not equivalent to High School Examination was used - Plea of not serving
the copy of document, relied upon in the impugned order, was taken - Permissibility - Writ
1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition was also dismissed confirming termination order - Validity challenged - Ground of not
conducting departmental enquiry was taken - Permissibility: (E-1)
Held: Fraud vitiates even the most solemn act and fraud and justice never dwell together - Once the
appellant had secured appointment based upon forged and fabricated certificates; other aspects of the matter
including alleged equivalence of the two qualifications and examinations, become irrelevant - Termination of
services of the appellant on the ground that he had obtained appointment based upon forged and fabricated
documents, was in accordance with law and the learned Single Judge has not erred in dismissing the writ
petition - Fraud and justice never dwell together and that in case the appointment has been obtained based
upon forged and fabricated documents, services can be terminated without holding inquiry, we find absolutely
no error, either of fact or law, in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. [Para 24, 25, 29 and 34]

Case Law Cited
Akanksha Gautam vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (6) ADJ 107; Dhanpal and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2013 (8) ADJ 723 (FB); Riazul Hasan vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 (6) ALJ 542; R. Vishwantha
Pillai vs. State of Kerala and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105; Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748;
Ishwar Dayal Sah vs. State of Bihar, 1987 Lab. I.C. 390; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajendra D.
Harmalkar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486; Union of India and others vs. M. Bhaskaran, AIR 1996 SC 686; Ram
Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others, (2003) 8 SCC 319; The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. T.
Suryachandra Rao, JT 2005 (6) SC 391; A.V. Papayya Sastry & others vs. Government of A.P. & Ors., JT 2007
(4) SC 186; zanpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat & others, JT 2008 (3) SC 452 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 311.

List of Keywords
Termination, Educational qualification, Documents, Forged and fictitious, Opportunity of hearing, Equivalence,
Marksheet and certificate, Departmental enquiry, Reasoned decision, Explanation, Verification, Cancellation of
appointment, Constitutional right, Misrepresentation, Misconduct, Fraud and justice.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 03.10.2013 passed in Writ A No. 54819 of 2013, Javed Khan v. State of U.P. and
Writ A No. 54821 of 2013, Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and Judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed in
Writ A No. 3689 of 2014, Mustaq Ullaha v. State of U.P. and others.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Siddharth Khare, Parashar Pandey.
Advs. for the Respondents: Ankit Gaur (S.C.).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ankit Gaur,
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in all the appeals.

2. Whereas Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013 arises out of order dated 03.10.2013
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ A No.54819 of 2013 (Javed Khan v. State of
U.P. and 5 others), Special Appeal No.1634 of 2013 raises challenge to an identical order
passed in Writ A No. 54821 of 2013 (Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 others) and Special
Appeal No.388 of 2014 arises out of order dated 25.02.2014 passed in Writ A No.3689 of
2014 (Mustaq Ullaha v. State of U.P. and others).
4 All. Javed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1535
3. Since controversy involved in all these appeals is identical, they are being
decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, Special Appeal No.1632
of 2013 is being treated as the leading one, however, slightly distinctive features of the
remaining two special appeals shall be taken note of by us.

4. By the order dated 03.10.2013, learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ A No.
54819 of 2013 upholding the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner
Excise, Agra, whereby the appellants representation against termination of his services
had been rejected on the ground that the documents submitted by him pertaining to his
educational qualifications had been found forged and fictitious in the inquiry conducted by
the respondents.

5. Brief facts are that the appellant, after undergoing the process of selection, was
appointed as Excise Constable by appointment order dated 14.10.2010 and he joined his
duties. On 30/31.05.2013, the Deputy Commissioner Excise, Agra terminated his services
against which he preferred a representation before the Deputy Commissioner Excise, Agra
Region, Agra and also filed Writ Petition No.36360 of 2013 (Javed Khan v. State of U.P.
and 2 others). The Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 09.07.2013 with liberty to
the appellant to approach the competent authority with supportive documents with a further
direction to the authority to take a reasoned decision.

6. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the appellant preferred another
representation dated 22.07.2013 before the authority annexing therewith 87 documents. All
the representations were rejected by order dated 16.09.2013, against which the writ petition
giving rise to the present appeal was filed and dismissed.

7. The authority has, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitionerappellant and after considering the explanation submitted by him and based upon the
documents, found the certificate of Adhikari Pariksha obtained by the petitioner in the
year 2008 from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura (in short the
University) to be forged, fabricated and invalid. It was further observed that the
Adhikari Pariksha allegedly conducted by the said University was not equivalent to
High School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education and,
consequently, termination of appellant was not interfered with.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions that the order dated
16.09.2013 was based upon the documents, copies whereof were not served upon him and,
therefore, the order cannot be sustained. On merits, it is contended that the appellant had
produced marksheet and certificate of Adhikari Pariksha (High School)-2008 issued by
the University. Learned counsel also referred the record of marks obtained by various
students including the appellant and submission has been made that once there was no
dispute regarding validity of Adhikari Pariksha (High School) conducted by the said
University up to the year 2008, but it was declared invalid only after 2008, as held by this
Court in Akanksha Gautam v. State of U.P. and others : 2012 (6) ADJ 107, declaring
1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the appellant's marksheet and certificate, which pertained to year 2008, as invalid, was per
se illegal.

9. It is further submitted that the view taken by the authority while rejecting the
representation that the Adhikari Pariksha allegedly conducted by the said University
was not equivalent to High School Examination conducted by the U.P. Board of Secondary
Education, is in teeth of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Dhanpal and others v.
State of U.P. and others : 2013 (8) ADJ 723 (FB) and, for this reason also, the order
impugned in the writ petition was liable to be set aside. Reliance has also been placed upon
judgment of this Court in Riazul Hasan v. State of U.P. and others : 2024 (6) ALJ 542.

10. It is lastly submitted that once the appellant was duly appointed on the post of
Excise Constable, termination of his services being stigmatic, could not be resorted to
without holding a full fledged departmental inquiry.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has made submissions that it is not a case
where appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing, rather the order dated
16.09.2013 itself indicates that not only his explanation was considered but also he was
personally heard and the order was passed based upon inquiry conducted by the
department, wherein it stood reflected that no academic activities were held in the
Institution wherefrom the appellant had obtained certificate, for the period w.e.f. 2008
onwards nor any examinations had been conducted during the said period. Further
submission has been made that during inquiry, no record of even recognition allegedly
granted to B.L. Vidya Mandir, Devnagar, Jheel ka Purva, District-Banda on 16.04.2005 had
been found and, therefore, conclusion drawn by the authority that documents produced by
the appellant were forged and fabricated, cannot be faulted.

12. It is further submitted that fraud vitiates everything and once it has been found
that the appellant had obtained appointment based upon forged and fabricated documents,
no departmental inquiry was required. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in R. Vishwantha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others : (2004) 2 SCC 105.

13. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material
available on record.

14. The order dated 16.09.2013, impugned in the writ petition was passed in
furtherance of the order passed by this Court in Writ A No.36360 of 2013, wherein this
Court had directed the authority to take a reasoned decision on appellant approaching the
authority. The order dated 16.09.2013 clearly indicates that the appellant was granted
opportunity to offer his explanation and for personal hearing, 27.06.2013 was fixed, on
which date the appellant filed various documents.

15. The authority has observed that before the documents presented by the
appellant could be verified, he preferred writ petition before the High Court and during the
course of verification of the marksheet of the appellant pertaining to the examinations of
4 All. Javed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1537
2008, it stood revealed that all the evidences produced by the appellant had not been issued
by or received from the University. The order further indicates that no Registrar was
appointed in the Institution during the relevant period of time, however, the letter pad and
even seal of Registrar had been utilized for the purposes of procuring documents.

16. It has further been recorded that the officer had personally contacted the Arya
Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P., 5- Meerabai Road, Lucknow and, on inquiry, it was found that no
head of the said Sabha was appointed. In relation to the same, letter dated 16.04.2009
issued by Justice S.C. Verma, retired Judge of this Court, who was acting as receiver in the
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, was relied on, wherein it was indicated that on account of
managerial dispute in relation to the Society, no academic activities had been conducted in
the Institution or in any related Colleges and no examinations had been held.

17. The order further indicates that a document of recognition to the B.L. Vidya
Mandir, Dev Nagar, Jheel ka Purva, District Banda, allegedly dated 16.04.2005 had been
produced, however, on query, the Vice Chancellor of the University had informed that the
documents did not pertain to the Institution nor was there any evidence to demonstrate that
the same were issued from the Institution and, consequently, the documents produced were
found to be forged.

18. After recording various findings regarding production of forged and
fabricated documents by the appellant, the authority has concluded that the appellant
had procured appointment on the post of Excise Constable based upon forged and
fabricated documents and, further, Adhikari Pariksha allegedly conducted by the
said University was not equivalent to High School Examination conducted by the
Board of Secondary Education.

19. As far as the documents referred to by learned counsel for the appellant to
demonstrate as if the marksheet and certificate of Adhikari Pariksha held in 2008 were
issued to the appellant and that the record of the University reflects his participation in the
examinations held, along with other candidates, we could have elaborated the implication
of the contents of those documents, however, once we are satisfied that the documents have
already been found as forged and fabricated pursuant to extensive inquiry held by the
authorities which we are not inclined to discard merely on the plea that copies of the
documents relied upon were not served upon the appellant, we need not delve into the
contents of the certificates or other documents.

20. The relied upon documents form part of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondents and the Court deems it appropriate to refer to one of such documents,
being letter dated 16.04.2009 issued by (Retired) Justice S.C. Verma, indicating issuance
of fabricated certificate. The said letter reads as under:-
1538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. : (2012) 8 SCC 748
held that fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at
the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and, in such cases, merely because
4 All. Javed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1539
the employee has continued in service for a number of years on the basis of such fraudulently
obtained employment, he cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of R. Vishwantha Pillai (supra), has laid
down that where an appointment in service had been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such
appointment is no appointment in law and in such a situation, Article 311 of the Constitution of
India is not attracted. The Honble Supreme Court reiterated the view taken by the Division Bench
of Patna High Court in Ishwar Dayal Sah v. State of Bihar : 1987 Lab. I.C. 390 and observed that in
that case, the employee had obtained appointment by producing a caste certificate indicating that he
belonged to a Scheduled Caste community which, later on, was found to be false and the
appointment was cancelled. It was contended by the employee before the Patna High Court that the
cancellation of appointment amounted to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311
of the Constitution and, therefore, void and that he could not be terminated from service without
holding departmental inquiry as provided under the Rules. Dealing with the above contention, the
High Court had held that if the very appointment to the civil posts is vitiated by fraud, forgery or
crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 of the
Constitution can possibly flow and if the very entry or the crossing of threshold into the area of the
civil service of the State or the Union is put in issue and door is barred against him, the cloak of
protection under Article 311 is not attracted.

23. On similar lines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v.
Rajendra D. Harmalkar : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486, has held that the production of a fake
document in a selection process is sufficient to invoke action, notwithstanding the intention of the
applicant. Similarly, in Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran : AIR 1996 SC 686, it has
been held that when an appointment is procured on the basis of bogus and forged causal labourer
service card, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. Therefore, it would
create no equity in favour of the workman or any estoppel against the employer and for such
misconduct, termination would be justified without any domestic inquiry.

24. It is well settled that fraud vitiates even the most solemn act and fraud and justice never
dwell together. Reference, in this regard, can be made to judgments of Honble Supreme Court in
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others : (2003) 8 SCC 319, The State of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao : JT 2005 (6) SC 391, A.V. Papayya Sastry & others
v. Government of A.P. & Ors. : JT 2007 (4) SC 186 and Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v.
State of Gujarat & others : JT 2008 (3) SC 452.

25. As far as arguments based upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Dhanpal (supra) qua equivalence of Adhikari Pariksha with High School examination
conducted by the U.P. Board of Secondary Education, we need not go into the said aspect of the
matter as we are satisfied that once the appellant had secured appointment based upon forged and
fabricated certificates; other aspects of the matter including alleged equivalence of the two
qualifications and examinations, become irrelevant.

26. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
1540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27. The appeal has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Special Appeal No.1634 of 2013

28. This special appeal is directed against order dated 03.10.2013 whereby the learned
Single Judge has dismissed Writ A No. 54821 of 2013 (Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 others).

29. The facts of the present case are identical to the one involved in Special Appeal
No.1632 of 2013 as also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we are of the
view that termination of services of the appellant on the ground that he had obtained appointment
based upon forged and fabricated documents, was in accordance with law and the learned Single
Judge has not erred in dismissing the writ petition.

30. For the reasons stated in the order deciding Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013, the
present appeal also stands dismissed.

Special Appeal No.388 of 2014

31. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2014 whereby learned
Single Judge has dismissed Writ A No.3689 of 2014 (Mustaq Ullah v. State of U.P. and 2 others).

32. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2013 whereby the Deputy
Excise Commissioner, Mirzapur, Region Mirzapur had terminated services of the appellant on
identical grounds of forged certificates and marksheets having been utilized for the purposes of
obtaining appointment on the post of Excise Constable.

33. Present appeal was filed subsequent to filing of Special Appeals No.1632 of 2013 and
1634 of 2013 and reliance was placed on interim orders dated 30.10.2013 passed therein.
Apparently, the cause agitated in the present appeal is identical to the one involved in two other
special appeals and once no distinctive features are apparent on the face of record as far as
obtaining appointment based upon the documents issued from the University etc., as already
discussed in our order passed in Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013, we are inclined to take same
view in the present appeal also.

34. We may, however, mention that though in other two appeals, the writ petitions were
dismissed by learned Single Judge by one page order, the order impugned in the present appeal is
quite detailed one wherein the learned Single Judge, after discussing the documents on record, has
recorded findings regarding production of forged certificates and other documents and, after
referring to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the proposition that fraud and justice
never dwell together and that in case the appointment has been obtained based upon forged and
fabricated documents, services can be terminated without holding inquiry, we find absolutely no
error, either of fact or law, in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

35. Consequently, the present appeal also fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Shubham Srivastava & Ors.
1541
(2026) 4 ILRA 1541
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

Application U/S 378 No. 30 of 2024

State of U.P. ...Applicant
Versus
Shubham Srivastava & Ors. ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether the victim and his father have corroborated the date, time, place, and manner of offence and have
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, but learned Trial Court, discarding the evidence of best
witness/victim, has recorded unreasonable finding and same is required to be interfered by this court by
granting leave to appeal.

Head Notes
The Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 377, 504 & 506; The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012- Sections 3 & 4;The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378(3)- That
offence was said to have been committed on 09.04.2020 and medical was conducted on
16.04.2020, and therefore, there may not be a chance of having found any injury on his person
by that time after a gap of almost seven days. But the fact remains that it was the burden of the
prosecution to explain as to why the First Information Report was not registered immediately
after commission of the offence and same is best known to the complainant- Only fact
established on record is that the prosecution version is not supported by the medical evidence,
which may be best piece of evidence to show the complicity of accused in commission of
offence- There is no dispute that the samples preserved by PW4 were not sent for DNA testing.
Therefore, the medical evidence is not in support of the version of prosecution and the
applicants have failed to point out any prima facie fault in the appreciation of medical evidence
by the learned Trial Court

Defence from the very inception that complainant was tenant of accused's father and was under
the obligation to pay the outstanding arrears of electricity charges pending against him, due to
which there was heated exchange of words between the complainant and father of accused and
in order to avoid the liability of payment, present malicious prosecution has been launched
against him-The elder brother of the victim has been shown as eyewitness of the occurrence, but
he was not examined as witness by the prosecution- Victim has blown hot and cold in same
breath and light of admission made by PW1, even if at a time it appeared that he corroborated
the story of prosecution, possibility cannot be ruled out that the child has been tutored to
depose against the accused and he is susceptible to be won over due to his tender age. If for the
sake of argument, it is assumed that some offence has been committed with the victim, then
also finding recorded by learned Trial Court that this child deposed at different places differently
and observed him not to be reliable witness, has guaranteed the presumption of innocence of
the accused, which cannot be taken away without any concrete and plausible evidence.