# Krishna Kant v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 345
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-17
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 10029 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kant-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52655
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C., Sunil
Kumar Dubey

Issues for consideration
 (a) Whether it is necessary to formally cancel a
succession certificate when, upon examination
of the official records such as the service book
and pension papers, it is found that the said
succession certificate was obtained on the basis
of misrepresentation or suppression of material
facts?
(b) Whether an appointment obtained by fraud
or misrepresentation can be sanctified by long
continuance in service?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988: Section 7; U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999: Rule 5(1); Dying in Harness Rules,
1974: Rule 5(1); Hindu Marriage Act,
1955: Section 5(1) - It is well settled that
fraud vitiates all solemn acts. A document
or order obtained by playing fraud on the
Court is non est in the eyes of law and is
void ab initio. (Para 77)

In the present case, if the succession certificate
is found, on the basis of service records and
pension
documents
available
with
the
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent authority, to have been procured by
concealment of the true legal heirs or by
furnishing false information, such certificate
cannot confer any enforceable right. It is merely
a fraudulent document lacking legal sanctity and
cannot be acted upon. (Para 78)

B. Even without setting aside an order
obtained by fraud, the Court or authority
is duty-bound to ignore it, for fraud
unravels everything. Therefore, once fraud is
detected from authentic official records, the
succession certificate becomes legally ineffective
and does not require a separate cancellation
proceeding
unless
a
statute
specifically
mandates so. (Para 79)

Accordingly, it is held that where, from
undisputed
official
records,
it
is
clearly
established that the succession certificate was
obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of
material facts, the authority is not bound to
recognize such certificate, and no separate
proceedings for cancellation are required. The
fraudulent certificate can simply be ignored
while adjudicating rights, as fraud renders the
document void from its inception. (Para 80)

C. It is a settled principle of law that a
person who approaches the writ court
u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India
must do so with clean hands, full candour,
and utmost bona fides. Where a litigant is
found to have suppressed or concealed material
facts which are demonstrably evident from the
records, such a person forfeits the equitable
jurisdiction of this Court. The writ remedy being
discretionary in nature, no relief can be claimed
as a matter of right by one who seeks to
mislead the Court. (Para 81, 82)
Consequently, a person who conceals vital facts
cannot turn around and allege interference with
judicial review. The constitutional power of this
Court is meant to advance justice, not to
perpetuate
fraud.
Once
suppression
is
established, the only consequence is dismissal
of the p

## Text

_Characters 0–39,891 of 114,910. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39891 for what follows._

10 All. Krishna Kant Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
345
to subsequent advertisements, nor could
any such appointment be made in view of
the interim order dated 20.02.2020.

18. The order dated 29.05.2025 is also
significant for grant of relief. The result of
the interview was placed before this Court
in a sealed cover for its perusal. After
scanning the results, the earlier bench
recorded that the present petition survived
with respect to petitioner no.2 only.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the result was shown to both the counsel,
which reflected that the petitioner no.2 was
successful in the interview. Shri Shesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the University
did not dispute this fact in response to a
pointed query made by this Court. The
petitioner no.2 thus, stood selected pursuant
to the interview and would have been
appointed but for the impugned orders.

19. The writ petition is allowed only in
respect of petitioner No.2. The impugned
order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the
Chancellor, and the consequential order
dated 03.11.2017 passed by the ViceChancellor is quashed. The impugned
Minutes of Meeting dated 27.10.2017 is
also quashed. Subsequent advertisements
shall stand modified to this extent. The
Vice-Chancellor of the University is
directed to grant appointment to the
petitioner no.2 on the post of Assistant
Professor
(Linguistic
Science)
after
completing
all
procedural
formalities
within 30 days from today.

20. Registrar (Compliance) is directed
to communicate a copy of this order to the
Vice-Chancellor of the Sampurnanand
Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi as well
as
Registrar
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi through C.J.M.
Varanasi within 48 hours.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 10029 of 2025

Krishna Kant ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prem Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C., Sunil
Kumar Dubey

Issues for consideration
 (a) Whether it is necessary to formally cancel a
succession certificate when, upon examination
of the official records such as the service book
and pension papers, it is found that the said
succession certificate was obtained on the basis
of misrepresentation or suppression of material
facts?
(b) Whether an appointment obtained by fraud
or misrepresentation can be sanctified by long
continuance in service?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988: Section 7; U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999: Rule 5(1); Dying in Harness Rules,
1974: Rule 5(1); Hindu Marriage Act,
1955: Section 5(1) - It is well settled that
fraud vitiates all solemn acts. A document
or order obtained by playing fraud on the
Court is non est in the eyes of law and is
void ab initio. (Para 77)

In the present case, if the succession certificate
is found, on the basis of service records and
pension
documents
available
with
the
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent authority, to have been procured by
concealment of the true legal heirs or by
furnishing false information, such certificate
cannot confer any enforceable right. It is merely
a fraudulent document lacking legal sanctity and
cannot be acted upon. (Para 78)

B. Even without setting aside an order
obtained by fraud, the Court or authority
is duty-bound to ignore it, for fraud
unravels everything. Therefore, once fraud is
detected from authentic official records, the
succession certificate becomes legally ineffective
and does not require a separate cancellation
proceeding
unless
a
statute
specifically
mandates so. (Para 79)

Accordingly, it is held that where, from
undisputed
official
records,
it
is
clearly
established that the succession certificate was
obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of
material facts, the authority is not bound to
recognize such certificate, and no separate
proceedings for cancellation are required. The
fraudulent certificate can simply be ignored
while adjudicating rights, as fraud renders the
document void from its inception. (Para 80)

C. It is a settled principle of law that a
person who approaches the writ court
u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India
must do so with clean hands, full candour,
and utmost bona fides. Where a litigant is
found to have suppressed or concealed material
facts which are demonstrably evident from the
records, such a person forfeits the equitable
jurisdiction of this Court. The writ remedy being
discretionary in nature, no relief can be claimed
as a matter of right by one who seeks to
mislead the Court. (Para 81, 82)
Consequently, a person who conceals vital facts
cannot turn around and allege interference with
judicial review. The constitutional power of this
Court is meant to advance justice, not to
perpetuate
fraud.
Once
suppression
is
established, the only consequence is dismissal
of the petition, irrespective of the merits of the
case. (Para 83)

It stands established that the petitioner is not
the biological son of Smt. Sumitra Devi, and that
he has taken inconsistent stands at different
stages of the proceedings. The appointment of
the petitioner on compassionate grounds was
secured on the strength of an affidavit sworn by
his father, wherein it was not disclosed that he
was already gainfully employed. (Para 84, 105,
106)

Moreover, there is nothing on record to
demonstrate that the daughters of Smt. Sumitra
Devi had furnished any no-objection or consent
to the petitioner being considered as a
dependant for the purpose of compassionate
appointment. Such deliberate concealment
of material facts amounts to fraud on the
employer. It is well settled that fraud
vitiates every solemn act and no person
can be permitted to take advantage of his
own wrong. (Para 85, 86)

D. An appointment obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation cannot be sanctified by
long continuance in service; equity has no
application in cases of illegality. Thus, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around
and contend that his appointment ought not to
be cancelled merely on the ground that he has
rendered 27 years of service. (Para 87)

E. Interim directions do not survive
independently after the final disposal of
the matter and it is only the ultimate
decision of the superior Court which
governs the field. It is well settled that
interim orders are granted only as a
matter of indulgence, subject always to
the final outcome of the proceedings, and
such directions perish the moment the lis
is finally adjudicated. It is astonishing that
much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner
upon an interim order which, in the eyes of law,
is of a purely temporary nature and incapable of
conferring any enduring right. (Para 91, 93)

The competent authority, in exercise of its
statutory powers, has meanwhile concluded the
enquiry and passed a final order. Such an order
cannot be rendered nugatory merely on the
strength of a fleeting interim protection, which
by
its
very
nature
stands
merged
and
extinguished once the appeal itself is decided.
(Para 92, 94)

F. Appointments obtained by producing
forged or manipulated documents are
10 All. Krishna Kant Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
347
nullities in the eye of law and any
monetary benefits derived therefrom are
recoverable. A person who has secured public
employment by practicing fraud or by deliberate
misrepresentation cannot claim any equity in his
favour. Such an appointment is void ab initio,
having been obtained through illegitimate
means, and therefore, the incumbent is not
entitled
to
draw
salary
or
derive
any
consequential benefits from such appointment.
In fact, any salary or emoluments already paid
pursuant to such fraudulent appointment are
liable to be recovered from the delinquent
individual, since no person can be permitted to
enrich himself by perpetrating fraud on the
State. (Para 95 to 97)

G. It is well settled that principles of
natural justice do not mandate an empty
or ritualistic repetition of hearing at every
subsequent stage of proceedings. Once an
effective opportunity of hearing has been
afforded at the initial stage, the person
concerned cannot insist upon a further or
second opportunity before the higher or
revisional
authority,
unless
fresh
adverse
material is introduced or the statute expressly
provides for it. (Para 98)

In the present case, the petitioner was duly put
to notice and had submitted his reply before the
competent authority. The subsequent order of
cancellation has been passed on the same set of
material facts, without placing reliance on any
additional facts. Therefore, the plea of violation
of natural justice is wholly misconceived, as the
essential requirement of principle of 'audi
alteram partem' stands sufficiently complied
with. (Para 99)

Though no opportunity of hearing is
required in the case of appointment
obtained by fraud, in the present case, a
detailed inquiry was conducted pursuant to
the order dated 06.03.2024 passed in Writ-A
No.1254 of 2022. In the said inquiry, it was
found that the appointment obtained by the
petitioner was fraudulent. (Para 100)

H. In case the employment has been
obtained based on fraudulent documents
on
concealing
material
facts,
the
beneficiary of such fraud cannot seek any
inquiry
in
terms
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules 1999. (Para 101)

I. It is a settled proposition of law that
protection
u/Article
311
of
the
Constitution of India is available only to a
person who has been validly and legally
appointed to a civil post under the Union
or a State. The constitutional safeguard
presupposes a lawful entry into service.
When an incumbent secures appointment by
suppression of material facts, misrepresentation
or by producing forged or fabricated certificates,
such an appointment is void ab initio and
confers no right to hold the post. (Para 102)

In the present case, the petitioner, by abusing
the process of law by concealing material fact,
has sought to usurp public employment which is
meant to be offered only to
deserving
candidates. No right, much less a constitutional
protection u/Article 311 of the Constitution of
India, can be claimed on the foundation of
fraud. (Para 104, 108)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. Shiv Mangal Verma Vs. State of U.P. and
others, (2020) 6 ALJ 145 (Para 3(vi))
2. Siddhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs.
State, (2010) 6 SCC 1 (Para 3(vii))
3. Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P., (Para 4(i))
4. Dr. Vinay Mohan Van Vs. Smt. Kanchan
Srivastava (Para 4(i))
5. Pratap Narain Saxena Vs. State of U.P. (Para
4(i))
6. Satya Dev Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (Para
4(i))
7. Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2
SCC 610 (Para 4(x))
8. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Shyam Kishore
Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 (Para 4 (xii)(a))
9. SBI vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 (Para
4 (xii)(b))
10. State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh 1964 AIR
521 (Para 4 (xii)(c))
11. Vishwaroop vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.
Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. And 3
Others, Writ-A No.2058 of 2024, decided on
15.10.2024 (Para 4 (xii)(d))
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others,
Writ-A No. 12839 of 2023, Neutral Citation
No.2025:AHC:130987 (Para 4 (xiii))
13. Krishna Kant Vs. State of U.P. and others,
Writ Petition No. 1254 of 2022 (Para 5 (XIII))
14. Krishnakant Vs. State of U.P. and others,
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10029 of 2025 (Para
5 (XVI))
15. Krishna Kant Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Verma,
District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur, Civil
Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3288 of 2024
(Para 5 (XX))
16. Anil Kumar Verma Vs. Krishna Kant, Special
Appeal No. 541 of 2025 (Para 5 (XXI))
17. Snehlata Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ
Petition (Writ-A) No. 17926 of 2022 (Para 5
(XXX))
18. R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and
others, 2004 (1) Supreme 436 (Para 5 (XXXI))
19. Amrit Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and
others, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 181 (Para 5 (XXXI))
20. Union of India and others Vs. Prohlad Guha,
2024 Supreme (SC) 616 (Para 5 (XXXI))
21. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited and another Vs. Anil Kanwariya, 2021
Supreme (SC) 500 (Para 5 (XXXI))
22. District Basic Education Officer and another
Vs. Smt. Punita Singh and 3 others, Special
Appeal (D) No.506 of 2024, decided on
15.10.2024 (Para 5 (XXXI))
23. Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021
0 Supreme(ALL) 782 (Para 5 (XXXI))
24. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P.
and others, Writ-A No.20140 of 2023, decided
on 25.08.2025 (Para 5 (XXXI))
25. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath,
(1994) 1 SCC 1 (Para 51)
26. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra
Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581 (Para 55)
27. A.V. Papayya Sastry Vs. Govt. of A.P.,
(2007) 4 SCC 221 (Para 56)
28. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath,
(1994) 1 SCC 1 (Para 61)
29. Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2010) 2 SCC 114 (Para 61)
30. State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6
SCC 417 (Para 63)
40. Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. S.
Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 (Para 63)
41. Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskaran, (1995)
Supp (4) SCC 100 (Para 65)
42. R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala,
(2004) 2 SCC 105 (Para 69)
43. Sudhakar Vs. Postmaster General, (2006) 4
SCC 348 (Para 69)
44. Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp
(4) SCC 100 (Para 73)
45. A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti
Venkateswarulu, (2005) 7 SCC 177 (Para 73)
46. K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India
Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481 (Para 82)
47. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India,
(2007) 8 SCC 449 (Para 82)
48. A.P. State Financial Corporation Vs. GAR ReRolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647 (Para 86)
49. Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala,
(2000) 6 SCC 359 (Para 93)
50. Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy, (2010)
8 SCC 383 (Para 97)
51. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
(2004) 3 SCC 1 (Para 98)
52. A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat
Chandra, (1990) 2 SCC 669 (Para 101)
53. Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari Vs. State of U.P.
And 2 Others, Writ-A No.20140 of 2023 (Para
101)

List of Acts
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999; Dying in Harness Rules, 1974;
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

List of Keywords
 termination,
disciplinary
proceeding,
appointment.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Prem Prakash

For
Respondent(s):
Ashish
Kumar
(Nagvanshi), C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Dubey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Prem Prakash Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi,
learned counsel for the Secretary, U.P.
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for
the respondent nos.2&3 and Mr. Hare Ram,
10 All. Krishna Kant Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
349
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent.

2. The present writ petition challenges
the legality and validity of the impugned
order
dated
04.07.2025
passed
by
respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner's
appointment has been declared void ab
initio with effect from the date of
appointment, i.e., 31.03.1998.

3. The brief facts relevant for the
purpose of the present case are that:-

(i) Earlier, the petitioner was
terminated from service on 20.12.2021,
without
initiating
any
disciplinary
proceeding, pursuant to a complaint lodged
by Smt. Snehlata. The petitioner challenged
the said termination order before this Court
by means of filing Writ-A No.1254 of
2022, wherein by an interim order dated
15.02.2022, relief was granted in favor of
the petitioner. Subsequently, the writ
petition was allowed by order dated
06.03.2024, with a direction for payment of
regular salary.

(ii) Against the order dated
06.03.2024, the respondents filed Special
Appeal Defective No. 233 of 2025 and
Special Appeal No. 234 of 2025, which
were
disposed
of
vide
order
dated
24.04.2025. The Division Bench affirmed
the order dated 06.03.2024 and gave a
further direction that the employer would
be entitled to conduct a fresh inquiry in
accordance with law, and the current salary
of the petitioner would also be paid.
However, the question of arrears of salary
from 2021 would abide by the fresh inquiry
to be concluded by the employer.

(iii) Pursuant to the order dated
24.04.2025, a disciplinary proceeding was
initiated on 07.05.2025, and a charge sheet
dated 20.05.2025 was served upon the
petitioner. However, the impugned order
dated 04.07.2025, was passed without
adhering to the procedure mandated by the
Division Bench's order dated 24.04.2025.
After passing the impugned order dated
04.07.2025, and during the pendency of the
present writ petition, the respondents have
filed a Civil Misc. Review Application
(Defective) No. 81 of 2025 in Special
Appeal
Defective
Nos.233/2025
and
234/2025, seeking to set aside the judgment
and
order
dated
24.04.2025.
The
respondents
have
also
filed
a
stay
application to stay the effect and operation
of the aforesaid order dated 24.04.2025,
which is expected to be heard within a
week.

(iv) If the stay application or the
review petition is allowed, the entire
disciplinary
proceeding,
including
the
impugned order dated 04.07.2025, passed
by Respondent No. 2, would become
infructuous.
Consequently,
this
writ
petition would also become infructuous, as
the entire proceeding is based on the
Division Bench's order.

(v) In the present case, the
respondents allege that the petitioner
obtained
compassionate
appointment
through fraudulent means. Two FIRs have
been lodged against the petitioner: One on
29.04.2022, under Section 420 IPC at
Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur,
and another on 20.05.2023, under Sections
420, 193, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, at Police Station Varanasi
Sector (Vigilance Establishment). Both
FIRs have been stayed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, vide orders dated
23.07.2024 (CRLP No. 12327 of 2024) and
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19.03.2025 (CRLP No. 17783 of 2022),
respectively.

(vi)
The
alleged
forged
documents submitted by the father of the
petitioner, i.e. Legal Heir Certificate and
Succession Certificate, were issued by the
competent authority and have not been
challenged by the respondents or the
complainant. The criminal proceedings
related to these documents have been
stayed by this Court. Therefore, it is not
established that the documents are forged.
Until the charges are proved in the criminal
proceedings, mere allegations of submitting
forged documents cannot be considered a
finding of guilt, as held by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Shiv Mangal
Verma vs. State of U.P. and others1.

(vii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Siddhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma Vs. State2, held that in the Indian
criminal jurisprudence, an accused is
placed in somewhat advantageous position
than under different jurisprudence of some
countries of the world. The criminal justice
administration system in India places
human rights and dignity for human life at
a
much
higher
pedestal.
In
our
jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be
innocent till proved guilty, the alleged
accused is entitled to fairness and true
investigation
and
fair
trial
of
the
prosecution is expected to play balanced
role in the trial of a crime.

(viii) Therefore, without proving
guilt through evidence, the petitioner
cannot be punished in the disciplinary
proceeding based solely on assumptions
that the Legal Heir Certificate and
Succession Certificate are forged, relying
on the complainant's statement.

(ix)
The
materials
brought
through the counter affidavit are not part of
the charge sheet as evidence and are not
relevant to the issues in the writ petition.
Therefore, they cannot be relied upon. It is
settled law that extraneous material cannot
be considered in a disciplinary inquiry.

(x) The petitioner's father had two
wives, namely, Yashoda Devi and Sumitra
Devi. Smt. Sumitra Devi, the petitioner's
mother, was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in the Basic Education Department
on 22.03.1976, and died in harness in the
year 1990. After attaining majority and
acquiring the requisite qualifications, the
petitioner
applied
for
compassionate
appointment in place of his mother and was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the
Basic
Education
Department
vide
appointment order dated 31.03.1998.

(xi) After serving for over 20
years, a dispute arose between the
petitioner and his younger sister, Smt.
Snehlata.
She
subsequently
filed
a
complaint with the National Human Rights
Commission, New Delhi, alleging that the
petitioner obtained his appointment using
forged documents. Following this, the
petitioner was served with a charge sheet
dated 18.10.2021, containing three charges.
Despite submitting a reply, the petitioner
was terminated vide order dated 20.12.2021
passed by Respondent No. 2, without
following due procedure.

(xii) The petitioner challenged the
termination order by means of filing WritA No. 1254 of 20223. The Court stayed the
termination order on 15.02.2022, and
ultimately allowed the writ petition on
06.03.2024. Pursuant to the stay order, the
petitioner was permitted to join duty on
10 All. Krishna Kant Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
351
23.03.2022, in compliance with the Court's
order.

(xiii)
The
petitioner
filed
Contempt Petition No. 3288 of 2024 due to
non-payment of salary despite the Court's
order dated 06.03.2024. Notice was issued,
which apparently prompted Respondent
No. 2 to file two special appeals with a
delay of over a year: Special Appeal
Defective No. 233 of 2025 and Special
Appeal Defective No. 234 of 2025.
However, both appeals were disposed of
vide
order
dated
24.04.2025,
affirming/upholding
the
order
dated
06.03.2024.

(xiv) The Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 24.04.2025, allowed
the employer to conduct a fresh inquiry in
accordance with law, while stipulating that
the issue of arrears of salary from 2021
would depend on the outcome of the new
inquiry. Pursuant to this order, Respondent
No. 2 initiated disciplinary proceedings on
07.05.2025, based on the same facts, and
appointed Respondent No. 3 as the Inquiry
Officer.

(xv) Respondent No.3 issued a
letter dated 14.05.2025, directing 11
persons, including the petitioner's family
members,
to
record
statements
on
19.05.2025 in the office of Respondent No.
2. The said date has been mentioned in the
inquiry report and the impugned order also.
However,
in
the
counter
affidavit,
Respondent No. 2 claimed that the letter
was issued for a vigilance inquiry, raising
questions about the role of Respondent No.
3, as he was initially appointed as a Inquiry
Officer for a disciplinary inquiry.

(xvi) The petitioner submitted his
reply to the letter on 19.05.2025, requesting
that the inquiry proceedings adhere to
relevant
statutory
provisions
and
Government Orders.

(xvii) An identical letter/notice
dated 29.05.2025 was also issued, and in
the said notice, the hearing dates in the
vigilance inquiry, as alleged by respondent
No. 3, were mentioned as 19.05.2025,
05.06.2025, 09.06.2025, 11.06.2025, and
13.06.2025. Notably, the petitioner was not
afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the
disciplinary inquiry, despite this being
mentioned in the impugned order.

(xviii) The respondents issued a
supplementary
charge
sheet
dated
20.05.2025, levelling 9 vague charges
against the petitioner without following due
procedure or applying judicious mind. The
petitioner
submitted
replies
to
the
supplementary charge sheet on 04.06.2025,
23.06.2025, and 28.06.2025, via registered
post, but the respondents failed to consider
them, as evident from the postal receipts
annexed.

(xix) Thereafter, on 30.06.2025,
the petitioner appeared before Respondent
No. 2, as per the letter dated 23.06.2025,
and submitted his reply to the charge sheet.
The petitioner also brought to notice the
actions of Sri Sanjay Kumar, Khand
Shiksha
Adhikari,
Rajgarh,
Mirzapur
(Inquiry Officer), through a letter, which is
acknowledged in the impugned order.
However, the impugned order's findings do
not address the petitioner's contentions.

(xx) Respondent No.2 seemingly
attempted to circumvent the contempt
petition by passing the impugned order
dated 04.07.2025, and filing it with an
affidavit, just days before the scheduled
personal appearance on 07.07.2025. This
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
action appears to be an effort to avoid
salary payment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has made the following contentions:-

(i) The punishment imposed upon
the petitioner is not prescribed under the
1999 Rules. It is a settled proposition of
law that a punishment not prescribed under
the rules, as a result of disciplinary
proceeding cannot be imposed. This
principle has been established through
various judgments, including Vijay Singh
Vs. State of U.P., Dr. Vinay Mohan Van
Vs. Smt. Kanchan Srivastava, Pratap
Narain Saxena Vs. State of U.P., and
Satya Dev Sharma Vs. State of U.P.

(ii) The Inquiry Officer denied
receiving the petitioner's reply to the charge
sheet on multiple occasions. Furthermore,
despite no witnesses being proposed in the
charge sheet, the Inquiry Officer recorded
statements from two witnesses, namely,
Sneh Lata and Anita, without providing the
petitioner
an
opportunity
for
crossexamination.

(iii) The Inquiry Officer recorded
statements from witnesses, who were not
proposed in the charge sheet, and the
Disciplinary Authority relied on these
statements while passing the impugned
order. This amounts to reliance on
extraneous
material,
which
is
impermissible in law.

(iv)
The
impugned
order
acknowledges
the
petitioner's
reply/representation, yet an ex-parte order
was passed, effectively disregarding the
petitioner's submission.

(v) Rule 5(1) of the 1999 Rules,
which is cited as the sole basis for the
punishment was not in existence at the time
of petitioner's appointment. Respondent
No. 2 knowingly framed charges based on
this non-existent rule. The charges framed
in the charge sheet are in violation of Rule
7(iii) of the 1999 Rules.

(vi)
During
open
vigilance
inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings ought
to have been dropped by the disciplinary
authority as per the government orders,
surprisingly,
instead
of
dropping
proceedings, the disciplinary authority
treated the vigilance inquiry itself as a
charge, i.e. charge no.9.

(vii)
Regarding
the
pension
received by the petitioner's father, the
respondents issued a show-cause notice
dated 05.08.2025, to which the petitioner
replied on 26.08.2025, via registered post.
However, these subsequent developments
hold no weight in determining the writ
petition, as they occurred after the
impugned
punishment
order
dated
04.07.2025. Moreover, since the decision
on these subsequent matters is still pending,
no inference or opinion can be drawn.

(viii) The succession certificate is
genuine, authentic, and undisputed, and
neither the complainant nor the Inquiry
Officer has challenged it before any
competent forum. They had the opportunity
to contest it under the Succession Act. The
certificate can only be revoked under
Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925. Similarly, the Legal Heir Certificate
issued by the Tehsildar can only be
challenged before the competent authority.
Therefore, neither the Inquiry Officer nor
the Disciplinary Authority has the power to
declare
these
certificates
forged
in
disciplinary proceedings under the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.
10 All. Krishna Kant Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
353

(ix) The succession certificate has
not been challenged before the competent
authority, it cannot be presumed to be
forged.
Thus,
its
genuineness
and
authenticity
are
well
established.
Furthermore, the inquiry report reveals
procedural irregularities. The petitioner
appeared before the Inquiry Officer on
17.06.2025, requesting time, but the Officer
submitted the report the same day without
granting any time. Additionally, the report
acknowledges the petitioner's submission
of a reply to Respondent No. 2 on
30.06.2025, yet the impugned order fails to
consider this reply, indicating that the
inquiry was conducted ex-parte and in
violation of due procedure.

(x) Judicial review under Article
226 of Constitution of India is limited,
therefore, the High Court cannot act as an
appellate
authority
in
disciplinary
proceedings, as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India vs. P. Gunasekaran4. It cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own
opinion. The Court's scope of interference
is restricted to ensuring procedural fairness,
adherence to principles of natural justice,
and rationality in decision-making.

(xi) There is no basis for the
complainant's
claim
to
compassionate
appointment after 27 years. Moreover, the
documents submitted by the petitioner
clearly establish his relationship as the son
of Late Sumitra Devi and no credible
evidence has been produced to the contrary.

(xii) In support of his contentions,
he
has
relied
upon
the
following
judgments:-

(a) In the case of Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh5, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when
relevant documents and affidavits were
examined and the authority is satisfied,
challenge on grounds of concealment at a
later stage must be substantiated with clear
evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.

(b) In the case of SBI vs. Raj
Kumar6, the Apex Court has opined that
compassionate appointment is not a vested
right, but once it is granted after proper
scrutiny and no material suppression is
proven, such appointment cannot be
invalidated.

(c) In the case of State of Punjab
vs. Jagdip Singh7, the Apex Court has held
that a void appointment is one made
without the authority of law, however, an
appointment following some procedural
irregularity is not void ab initio unless there
is violation of essential conditions.

(d) This Hon'ble Court in Writ-A
No.2058 of 20248 has held as under:-

"12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in
similar
circumstances
where
the
individual had obtained compassionate
appointment de hors the rules and his
appointment was set aside after a period of
15 years, it was held that the same was not
justified
in
terminating
such
an
appointment. The relevant paragraphs of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Md. Zamil Ahmed Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4815 of
2016) is quoted herein below:-

"14) Keeping in view the peculiar
undisputed facts of the case and having
regard to the totality of the circumstances,
we are of the considered view that the State
was not justified in terminating the
appellant's services. In other words, the
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground on which the appellant's services
were terminated by the State after a period
of 15 years of appellants appointment does
not appear to be well founded. This we say
for the following reasons:

15) Firstly, the appellant and wife
of the deceased at the time of seeking
compassionate appointment did not conceal
any fact and nor filed any false or incorrect
document/declaration. On the other hand,
both of them disclosed their true family
relations and conditions prevailing in the
deceased family on affidavit.

16) Secondly, the appellant, who
is the brother of the deceased, undertook to
maintain the family of the deceased in the
event of his securing the compassionate
appointment and he accordingly also gave
such undertaking to the State."

13.
It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances, this Court is also of the
considered
view that there
was
no
justification on the part of the State to have
woken up after a lapse of 12 years and
found infirmity in the appointment of the
petitioner and quashed the same. Further
there are no allegations that the petitioner
had concealed any material fact or some
fact was found out by the State after a
substantial length of time necessitating
termination of his services. Once a finding
has been recorded that the petitioner was
not responsible for suppression of any
material fact in securing his appointment
then the onus lay upon the State to have
examined the entire facts prior to giving
him
appointment
on
compassionate
grounds. For the lapse if any of the State
the services of the petitioner cannot be
terminated after a lapse of 12 years."

(xiii) In the case of Writ-A No.
12839 of 20239, the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court held that all the relevant
documents were submitted and duly
scrutinized by the competent authority
before the appointment was offered. As
such, the appointment cannot be termed as
illegal or void. It is a settled principle of
law that an appointment made after due
verification and without any fraudulent
intent cannot be cancelled merely on
technical grounds or assumptions. In the
absence of any material irregularity or
violation of the prescribed procedure,the
petitioner's appointment stands on firm
legal footing and is not liable to be
annulled retrospectively.

(xiv) In light of the facts and
circumstances, it is just and expedient to
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
04.07.2025, passed by Respondent No. 2.
Failure to do so would result in irreparable
loss and injury to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent nos.2&3, submits that:-

(I)
The
petitioner's
father,
Natheram, was appointed as Lekhpal on
01.03.1976, and later retired as Revenue
Inspector
on
31.10.2015,
in
District
Mirzapur. Natheram had two marriages:
first with Smt. Yashoda Devi (born
21.05.1960) and second with Late Sumitra
Devi. From his first marriage with Smt.
Yashoda Devi, Natheram had four sons and
one daughter, namely,:-

a. Krishnakant (born February 20,
1979)

b. Laxmikant (born July 5, 1978)

c. Ram Krishna (born August 5,
1986)

d. Jay Krishna (born August 5,
1989)
10 All. Krishna Kant Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
355

e. Vijay Laxmi (born July 1,
1991)

From his second marriage with
Late Sumitra Devi, Natheram had two
daughters:-

i. Sunita alias Snehlata (born July
31, 1987)

ii. Anita (born in the year 1989)

(II) Yashoda Devi and Sumitra
Devi both are real sister. The petitioner's
father's pedigree (sajara) is submitted for
the Court's reference:-

(III) Sumitra Devi was appointed
as an Assistant Teacher on 18.07.1972, at
Primary School Balli Parwa, Block Kon,
Mirzapur, and was later promoted to Head
Mistress on 16.10.1981. Tragically, she
was murdered on 16.12.1990, resulting in
Case Crime No. 798 of 1990 under Section
302 IPC, registered at Police Station
Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur.

(IV) At the time of death of Late
Sumitra Devi, the petitioner was a minor.
Upon attaining majority in 1998, he
obtained a legal heir certificate dated
11.03.1998, from the Tehsildar Sadar,
Mirzapur, declaring him the son of Late
Sumitra Devi. Notably, the petitioner's
father, Natheram, submitted an affidavit
dated 06.03.1998, addressed to the District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Mirzapur,
affirming the petitioner as the son of Late
Sumitra Devi, despite the petitioner being
the son of Yashoda Devi.

(V) The petitioner subsequently
submitted an application to the District
Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur, seeking
compassionate appointment based on Late
Sumitra Devi's service. The application was
accompanied by the legal heir certificate
dated 11.03.1998, and his father's affidavit
dated
06.03.1998,
which
have
been
annexed as Annexure No. CA-2 to the
counter affidavit in support of the writ
petition.

(VI)
The
Assistant
Basic
Education
Officer,
Block
Chhanbe,
Mirzapur,
forwarded
the
petitioner's
application
along
with
supporting
documents to the District Basic Education
Officer, Mirzapur, for necessary action.
Upon
completion
of
formalities, the
District Basic Education Officer issued an
appointment
letter
dated
31.03.1998,
appointing the petitioner as an untrained
Assistant Teacher at Primary School,
Mirzapur.
The
appointment
was
conditional, with a stipulation that if any
documents were found forged or facts
concealed, the appointment would be
canceled without notice, and any salary
paid would be recoverable. The report of
the Assistant Basic Education Officer and
the appointment letter have been annexed
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as Annexure No. CA-3 to the counter
affidavit in support of the writ petition.

(VII) At the time of Late Sumitra
Devi's death, her two daughters, Snehlata
(alias Sunita), aged 3 years, and Anita,
aged 1 years, were left behind. On
16.03.2020, Snehlata filed a complaint
before the Chairman of the National
Human Rights Commission, New Delhi,
alleging that her father had wrongfully
obtained compassionate appointment for
his son, Krishnakant (from another wife),
by falsely claiming him to be dependent on
Late Sumitra Devi, despite Snehlata and
her sister being the actual dependents. She
requested an inquiry into the matter, sought
justice
and
claim
entitlement
to
compassionate appointment herself. A copy
of Snehlata's application dated 16.03.2020,
has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-8 to
the counter affidavit in support of the writ
petition.

(VIII) Pursuant to Snehlata's
complaint, Case No. 8513/24/2020 (M-4)
was registered with the National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi.
The NHRC, subsequently, passed an order
dated 03.11.2021, which is quoted as
under:-

"The Commission has perused
the record and observes that in view of the
report, the allegations have been found to
be substantiated and necessary action will
be taken against the guilty person/officials.
But the report is silent as to what action the
Administration has taken to compensate the
present complainant in view of the loss she
suffered due to the illegal appointment of
Shri Krishnakant by the Administration and
her claim for appointment in Government
service on compassionate grounds. The
Commission therefore directs the Special
Secretary, Department of Basic Education,
Govt. of Utter Pradesh, Lucknow to submit
further report about action taken against the
guilty public servants and the action taken
compensate the complainant for the loss
she suffered due to the illegal appointment
of Shri Krishnakant by the Administration
and
her
claim
for
appointment
in
Government service on compassionate
grounds in the instant matter within four
weeks, positively."

(IX) The NHRC also directed the
Special Secretary, Basic Education, U.P.,
Lucknow, to submit a further report
regarding action taken against the petitioner
and to compensate Snehlata (alias Sunita)
for the losses incurred due to the
petitioner's illegal appointment. Pursuant to
this
direction,
the
Special
Secretary
instructed the Secretary, Basic Education
Board, via orders dated 08.03.2022, and
18.08.2022, to take appropriate action in
compliance with the NHRC's order dated
03.11.2021.

(X) In the meantime, Snehlata
also
lodged
a
complaint
with
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Mirzapur,
regarding the petitioner's allegedly forged
appointment. Pursuant to this complaint,
the police authority conducted an inquiry
and submitted a report on 30.09.2020,
concluding that the petitioner's appointment
was indeed forged, as he is the son of
Yashoda Devi but obtained appointment
claiming to be the son of Late Sumitra
Devi. A copy of the inquiry report has been
annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the
counter affidavit in support of the writ
petition.