# Nagendra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12070 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53098
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Public Employment -
Termination
on
ground
of
forged
educational
certificate
-
U.P.
Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - U.P.
Government Department Subordinate
Accounts
Cadre
(Non-Gazetted)
Service Rules, 2014 - Rule 26 -
Holding
of
regular
departmental
inquiry
not
required
where
appointment secured through fraud is
ex facie established - Appointment
obtained by fraud is void ab initio,
confirmed employee not entitled to
inquiry under Article 311(2) - Fraud
vitiates appointment at inception and
not
a
case
of
misconduct
during
service - Forged 'O' level certificate,
facially
fabricated,
not
issued
by
Calcutta
University
-
Disciplinary
proceedings
not
mandatory
where
appointment
itself
is
founded
on
apparent forgery and fraud.(Para - 18 to
21, 28 to 30)

Petitioner appointed as Assistant Accountant
in
2020
based
on
'O'
level
computer
certificate - later found forged as not issued
by University of Calcutta - services terminated
in 2023 without departmental inquiry - hence
petition. (Para - 1 to 5)

HELD: - An appointment secured by utter
fraud, even if the employee has proceeded to
confirmation in service, would not entitle him
to the holding of disciplinary proceedings,
where the fraud is apparent and requires no
consideration of evidence on both sides to
reach a definitive conclusion. But, he would
be entitled to show cause and a reasonable
opportunity, which has been afforded to the
petitioner in this case.
(Para
-
29,30)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,956 of 55,146. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39956 for what follows._

4 All. Nagendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
147
against the petitioner did exist on
record to form an opinion by the Screening
Committee that petitioner is liable to be
compulsorily retired. The decision taken by
the Full Court and the consequential
decision of the State Government to
compulsorily retire the petitioner, therefore,
warrants
no
interference.
This
is
particularly so, as the petitioner is a
Judicial Officer, who acts on behalf of the
State in discharge of its sovereign function.
The ordinary litigant must have complete
faith in the judicial system and no
impression can be afforded to be given to a
litigant which may even remotely create
perception against the justice delivery
system. There is otherwise no allegation of
any bias or malafide against the members
of Screening Committee nor is it shown
that the subjective opinion of the Screening
Committee is based upon no evidence. In
such circumstances, the order impugned
compulsorily retiring the petitioner merits
no interference.

 27. Writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 147
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 12070 of 2024

Nagendra Kumar .Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhinav Tripathi, Prashant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal
(A) Service Law - Public Employment -
Termination
on
ground
of
forged
educational
certificate
-
U.P.
Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - U.P.
Government Department Subordinate
Accounts
Cadre
(Non-Gazetted)
Service Rules, 2014 - Rule 26 -
Holding
of
regular
departmental
inquiry
not
required
where
appointment secured through fraud is
ex facie established - Appointment
obtained by fraud is void ab initio,
confirmed employee not entitled to
inquiry under Article 311(2) - Fraud
vitiates appointment at inception and
not
a
case
of
misconduct
during
service - Forged 'O' level certificate,
facially
fabricated,
not
issued
by
Calcutta
University
-
Disciplinary
proceedings
not
mandatory
where
appointment
itself
is
founded
on
apparent forgery and fraud.(Para - 18 to
21, 28 to 30)

Petitioner appointed as Assistant Accountant
in
2020
based
on
'O'
level
computer
certificate - later found forged as not issued
by University of Calcutta - services terminated
in 2023 without departmental inquiry - hence
petition. (Para - 1 to 5)

HELD: - An appointment secured by utter
fraud, even if the employee has proceeded to
confirmation in service, would not entitle him
to the holding of disciplinary proceedings,
where the fraud is apparent and requires no
consideration of evidence on both sides to
reach a definitive conclusion. But, he would
be entitled to show cause and a reasonable
opportunity, which has been afforded to the
petitioner in this case.
(Para
-
29,30)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2016) 8
SCC 471

2. Abhiram Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2020 SCC
OnLine All 2248
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Smt. Parmi Maurya Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2014 (2) ADJ 633 (DB)

4. A.P. P.S.C. Vs Koneti Venkateswarulu &
ors., (2005) 7 SCC 177

5. Devendra Kumar Vs St. of Uttaranchal &
ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363

6. Manjul Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 2021 SCC
OnLine All 2161

7. Reena Devi Vs St. of U.P., 2019 SCC
OnLine All 4783

8. U.O.I & ors. Vs Bipad Bhanjan Gayen,
(2008)11 SCC 314

9. Jainendra Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 8
SCC 748

10. Narendra Kumar Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2021 (1) ADJ 654

11. Punj. U.P.D.A. Vs Karamjit Singh, (2019)
16 SCC782

12. Raj Kumar Saxena Vs Basic Shiksha
Parishad U.P. & ors., 2019 SCC OnLine All
4256

13. Narendra Kumar Gond Vs St. of U.P.
through Secy. (Basic Education) & ors., 2018
SCC OnLine All 5716

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against an order of the Director, Internal
Account and Audit, Directorate, U.P.
dated
22.12.2023,
cancelling
the
petitioner's appointment as an Assistant
Accountant. Also under challenge is an
order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the
Director
aforesaid,
where
pending
proceedings, to determine the validity of
the
petitioner's
'O'
level
computer
certificate secured from the Calcutta
University,
disbursement
of
the
petitioner's salary was stayed until further
orders.

2. An advertisement, bearing No.12
of 2016, was issued by the Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Services
Selection
Commission, Lucknow (for short, 'the
Commission'), advertising 2874 posts of
Assistant
Accountants,
Auditors
and
Assistant Treasury Accountants to be filled
up by direct recruitment. The selections
were to be made by the Commission on the
basis of a written test followed by
interview.
One
of
the
essential
qualifications was the possession of an 'O'
level
diploma
certificate
from
a
Government of India recognized institute.

3. It is the petitioner's case that,
being eligible and qualified to be selected
and appointed against one of these posts,
the petitioner applied in response to the
advertisement of 2016 issued by the
Commission. He was issued an admit-card,
permitting him to participate in the written
examination. The petitioner appeared in the
written examination, which he successfully
passed. The petitioner says that he was
directed by the Commission to produce his
certificates of educational qualifications at
the time of interview for document
verification. The petitioner was successful
in the interview and declared selected for
appointment to the post of Assistant
Accountant and Auditor on 16.10.2019.
The result was declared by the Commission
on the last mentioned date. The result dated
16.10.2019
mentioned
that
a
few
candidates have been conditionally selected
as their 'O' level computer certificate was
yet to be verified. The Commission, vide
their letter dated 31.10.2019, directed the
employers, that is to say, the Director,
Internal Account and Audit, Directorate,
U.P. to verify the educational qualifications
4 All. Nagendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149
and certificates of candidates before issue
of appointment letters. In response to the
aforesaid advice from the Secretary of the
Commission, the selected candidates were
directed to produce certificates of their
educational qualifications in the prescribed
proforma, which was done by the petitioner
filling up the proforma on 17.12.2019.
After
verification
of
the
petitioner's
qualifications by the office of the Director,
Internal Account and Audit, Directorate,
U.P., the petitioner was issued a letter of
appointment, signed by the Director, dated
16.06.2020. The petitioner was posted as an
Assistant Accountant in the office of the
Block Development Officer, Suriyawan,
Bhadohi. The petitioner's name finds place
at serial No.14 of the appointment-cumposting letter dated 16.06.2020 issued by
the Director. The petitioner joined service
of
the
respondents
as
an
Assistant
Accountant on 24.06.2020.

4. According to the petitioner's
case, he has been working continuously
ever since in the office of the Block
Development Officer, Suriyawan, Bhadohi
to the satisfaction of his superiors and with
no complaint against him. The petitioner
was all of a sudden served with a show
cause notice dated 07.06.2023 issued by the
respondents, calling upon him to submit
documents, that would verify his 'O' level
computer diploma certificate. In reply to
the
said
show
cause
notice
dated
07.06.2023,
the
petitioner
submitted
documents, that would establish his case.
The petitioner submitted his reply on
26.06.2023 as aforesaid. Once again a show
cause notice dated 12.10.2023 was issued
to the petitioner by the Director, calling
upon
the
petitioner
to
submit
his
explanation with regard to the validity of
his 'O' level computer certificate. Along
side the said show cause, by an order of the
selfsame date, the petitioner's salary was
stopped pending inquiry into the validity of
the petitioner's certificate last mentioned.
This was followed by the order dated
22.12.2023, cancelling the petitioner's
appointment on ground that his 'O' level
computer certificate was forged and not
issued by the Calcutta University.

5. Aggrieved by the orders dated
22.12.2023 and 12.10.2023, both passed
by the Director, Internal Account and
Audit, Directorate, U.P., this petition has
been instituted under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

6. A notice of motion by a
reasoned order dated 12.08.2024 was
issued and an ad interim stay of operation
of both the impugned orders granted with
a direction to permit the petitioner to
discharge his duties regularly and pay
him salary. In answer to the notice of
motion, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a
counter affidavit dated 31.08.2024, to
which the petitioner filed a rejoinder
dated 02.10.2024. Apart from the notice
of motion, upon a complaint by the
petitioner that the interim order is being
observed in breach, this Court on
25.09.2024 ordered the Director to permit
the petitioner to join and comply with the
interim orders of this Court dated
12.08.2024 in letter and spirit. The
Director was also asked to show cause
why other measures be not adopted to
enforce this Court's order, if the breach
continued. The Director filed her reply to
the show cause along with an application,
bringing on record certain documents,
which too add to the pleadings in this
case. In order to enable the petitioner to
plead to the facts brought on record
through the Director's affidavit filed in
reply to the show cause, the petitioner was
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given opportunity to file a counter affidavit,
which he did on 02.10.2024. This too forms
part of the pleadings.

7. On 03.10.2024, when this
petition came up, the parties having
exchanged affidavits, it was admitted to
hearing,
which
proceeded
forthwith.
Judgment was reserved.

8. Heard Mr. Prashant Shukla,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate General assisted by Ms. Akansha
Sharma,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2,
3, 5, 6 and 7, and Mr. Siddharth Singhal,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.4. Service upon respondent
No.8 is confirmed as per office report dated
30.08.2024, but no one has put in
appearance.

9. It is argued by Mr. Prashant
Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the respondents had already verified
the 'O' level computer certificate relied
upon by the petitioner, as evident from the
result,
that
was
declared
by
the
Commission on 16.10.2019. It is pointed
out that the Commission has specifically
advised the respondent Department, vide
letter dated 31.10.2019, to verify the
educational qualifications and certificates
before proceeding to issue appointment
letters. Pursuant to the aforesaid advice,
candidates were directed to produce their
testimonials relating to their educational
qualifications, submitting them in the
prescribed proforma. The petitioner filled
up the prescribed proforma, producing the
requisite certificates on 17.12.2019. It was
after verification of all documents relating
to his educational qualifications that the
petitioner was issued with the letter of
appointment-cum-posting dated 16.06.2020
by the Director. The submission, therefore,
is that the respondents are now estopped
from
cancelling
the
petitioner's
appointment by relying upon the report
allegedly received from the Calcutta
University, saying that the petitioner's
certificate has not been issued by them.
After all, the respondents had verified the
genuineness of the petitioner's certificate
relating to the 'O' level computer course.

10. It is next urged that the
petitioner's appointment has been cancelled
after a period as long as three years, which
is arbitrary and impermissible in law. The
advertisement was issued in the year 2016
and the petitioner appointed on 16.06.2020,
after clearing the written examination and
interview. Ever since, he has been
diligently working to the satisfaction of his
superiors. Lapse, as it is, of a period of
almost
three
years,
the
petitioner's
appointment cannot be cancelled by the
impugned order. It is next urged that after
expiry of the period of probation and the
petitioner becoming a regular employee of
the Department, his appointment could not
have been cancelled without holding a
regular departmental inquiry. An inquiry in
this case has to be held in accordance with
the procedure prescribed under the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, 'the
Rules of 1999'), which apply to the
petitioner by virtue of Rule 26 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Department
Subordinate
Accounts
Cadre
(NonGazetted) Service Rules, 2014 (for short,
'the Rules of 2014').

11. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner points out that the petitioner
earned his 'O' level computer certificate,
pursuing his studies with the Indian
4 All. Nagendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
Technical
Institute,
Adarsh
Bazar,
Ghazipur
(for
short,
'the
Technical
Institute'), from 10.07.2012 to 05.08.2013.
It is next submitted by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner that after issue of the
show cause notice dated 07.07.2023, the
petitioner ex abundanti cautela passed his
'O' level computer certificate course again
from the National Institute of Electronics &
Information Technology (NIELIT), that
was granted to him on 30.05.2024. It is
then submitted that if any fraud had been
committed by the Technical Institute, the
petitioner, who was a bona fide student at
the said institute, cannot be made to suffer
on account of the fraud played upon him by
the Technical Institute. The petitioner did
not have knowledge about the 'O' level
computer
certificate,
issued
by
the
Technical Institute, being forged and
fabricated. So far as he is concerned, he did
not conceal any material facts, either before
the Commission or the respondents, who
have appointed him in their establishment.
It is emphasized by Mr. Shukla that in the
garb of passing the impugned orders, styled
as orders of cancellation of appointment,
the
petitioner's
services
have
been
terminated, who is otherwise a regular and
confirmed
employee,
appointed
in
accordance with Rules. He was selected
after following the prescribed procedure by
the Commission and then appointed by the
Director vide order dated 16.06.2020. He
was appointed to a cadre post. The
impugned order dated 22.12.2023 is not an
order of discharge of a probationer from
service. If at all the petitioner's services had
to be terminated, it could be done only after
holding a departmental inquiry, as part of
regular disciplinary proceedings, envisaged
under the Rules of 1999 read with the Rule
of 2014.
12. In support of his submissions,
Mr. Shukla has relied upon the authority of
the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v.
Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC
471, a decision of Padia, J. in Abhiram v.
State of U.P. and others, 2020 SCC
OnLine All 2248, and a Bench decision of
this Court in Smt. Parmi Maurya v. State
of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 633
(DB).

13. Mr. Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Ms. Akansha Sharma, learned Standing
Counsel, has primarily answered the
petitioner on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2,
3, 5, 6 and 7. It is argued by Mr. Goyal that
the 'O' level computer certificate, that the
petitioner claims to have earned from the
University of Kolkatta, is forged to its face
and has drawn the attention of the Court to
a xerox copy of the certificate, annexed to
the affidavit filed by the Director, Internal
Account and Audit, Directorate, U.P. in
reply to the show cause notice issued by
this Court on 25.09.2024. He points out
that a perusal of the certificate shows that it
has been issued by the 'University of
Kolkatta'. He says that there is no such
university as the 'University of Kolkatta'.
The 'University of Calcutta' does not write
or
describe
itself
as
'University
of
Kolkatta', but as the 'University of
Calcutta'. He has further drawn attention of
the Court to the same affidavit filed in
support of the reply to the show cause last
mentioned, where annexed as Annexure
No.2 is a memo, bearing reference No.
CE/Dip/Veri/11348/2023 dated 26.09.2023,
addressed to the Director, Internal Account
and Audit, Directorate, U.P., Lucknow by
the Deputy Controller of Examinations,
University of Calcutta. The memorandum
aforesaid says in answer to a query by the
Director, Internal Account and Audit,
Directorate,
U.P.
that
the
document
submitted has not been issued by the
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Calcutta
University.
There
is,
thus,
according to Mr. Goyal, a clear denial by
the University of Calcutta having ever
issued the 'O' level computer certificate,
upon which the petitioner relies to support
his candidature. He submits that possession
of an 'O' level computer certificate is an
essential qualification for appointment as
an Assistant Accountant. The petitioner
was given due opportunity, including a
show cause notice and personal hearing,
before the order for cancellation of
appointment was passed by the Director.
The
petitioner
neither
disputed
the
certificate, upon which he relied to support
his candidature, nor the verification report
received from the University of Calcutta.
He has invited the attention of the Court to
what the petitioner said in his reply to the
respondents' letter dated 07.06.2023, asking
him to verify his 'O' level computer
certificate. It figures at page No.76 of the
writ petition paper book and reads:

 "महोदय मेिे द्वािा 'ओ' लेवल वषट 2013 में धकया
गया है। जो धक आपके कायाटलय में जमा कि धदया गया है। जो सत्य
है । धनम्न document मैने धजन तथ्यो से अवगत किाया है। या
जो अधर्लेख प्रस्त त धकये है इसके अधतरिक्त औि क छ नही कहना
है।"

14.
The
learned
Additional
Advocate General submits that adherence
to principles of natural justice in this case
would not require the holding of regular
disciplinary
proceedings
as the
very
appointment of the petitioner is based on a
forged document, which the petitioner does
not deny, is the one he relies upon to
support his candidature. Therefore, by not
holding a regular departmental inquiry or
disciplinary proceedings, in accordance
with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, no
prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.
So far as the 'O' level computer certificate
dated 31.05.2024, earned by the petitioner
from the NIELIT is concerned, the same
would be of no help as it has been earned
after the petitioner's appointment. Mr.
Goyal
emphasizes
that
in
fact
the
petitioner's endeavour to secure an 'O' level
certificate in computers, all over again,
constitutes an admission on his part that the
certificate, upon which he relied to support
his candidature, was forged.

15. Mr. Manish Goyal has relied
upon the authority of the Supreme Court in
A.P. Public Service Commission v.
Koneti Venkateswarulu
and
others,
(2005) 7 SCC 177; Devendra Kumar v.
State of Uttaranchal and others, (2013) 9
SCC 363; Manjul Kumar v. State of
U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 2161; Reena
Devi v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine
All 4783; and, Union of India and others
v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, (2008) 11 SCC
314.

16. We have carefully considered
the rival submissions advanced by learned
Counsel for both parties and perused the
record.

17. The moot question is, if as a
thumb rule in all cases where an employee,
who is appointed to a service in accordance
with Rules after selection and confirmed in
service, is it imperative to hold a fullfledged disciplinary proceedings before his
service can be terminated, if the case is that
he secured the appointment by practice of
fraud, relying on forged documents of
eligibility? The corollary of the question is,
if an appointment is secured through
practice of utter fraud, based on forged
testimonials, can the appointment be
cancelled without obliging the employer to
hold a regular disciplinary proceedings
against the employee, even if he is
confirmed in service, by giving him a show
4 All. Nagendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
153
cause notice and hearing him on the
validity of the document.

18. To hold in his favour, during
the course of submissions, learned Counsel
for the petitioner has very forcefully relied
upon Avtar Singh (supra), which is a three
Judge Bench decision of the Supreme
Court. The principles in Avtar Singh and
the remarks that are relevant, to which our
attention was invited, appear in paragraph
Nos.33 to 38.11 of the report. These read:

"33.
The
fraud
and
misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and
in case employment has been obtained on
the basis of forged documents, as observed
in M. Bhaskaran case [Union of India v. M.
Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996
SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94] , it
has also been observed in the reference
order that if an appointment was procured
fraudulently,
the
incumbent
may
be
terminated without holding any inquiry,
however, we add a rider that in case
employee is confirmed, holding a civil post
and has protection of Article 311(2), due
inquiry has to be held before terminating
the services. The case of obtaining
appointment on the basis of forged
documents has the effect on very eligibility
of incumbent for the job in question,
however, verification of antecedents is
different aspect as to his fitness otherwise
for the post in question. The fraudulently
obtained appointment orders are voidable at
the option of employer, however, question
has to be determined in the light of the
discussion made in this order on impact of
suppression
or
submission
of
false
information.

34. No doubt about it that
verification of character and antecedents is
one of the important criteria to assess
suitability and it is open to employer to
adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but
ultimate action should be based upon
objective criteria on due consideration of
all relevant aspects.

35. Suppression of "material"
information presupposes that what is
suppressed
that
"matters"
not
every
technical or trivial matter. The employer
has to act on due consideration of
rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of
powers in order to cancel candidature or for
terminating the services of employee.
Though a person who has suppressed the
material
information
cannot
claim
unfettered
right
for
appointment
or
continuity in service but he has a right not
to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of
power has to be in reasonable manner
with objectivity having due regard to
facts of cases.

36. What yardstick is to be
applied has to depend upon the nature
of post, higher post would involve more
rigorous criteria for all services, not
only to uniformed service. For lower
posts which are not sensitive, nature of
duties,
impact
of
suppression
on
suitability has to be considered by
authorities
concerned
considering
post/nature of duties/services and power
has
to
be
exercised
on
due
consideration of various aspects.

37. The "McCarthyism" is
antithesis to constitutional goal, chance
of reformation has to be afforded to
young offenders in suitable cases,
interplay of reformative theory cannot
be ruled out in toto nor can be generally
applied but is one of the factors to be
taken
into
consideration
while
exercising the power for cancelling
candidature or discharging an employee
from service.

38. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and reconcile
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
them as far as possible. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, we summarise our
conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the
employer by a candidate as to conviction,
acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a
criminal case, whether before or after
entering into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false mention
of required information.

38.2. While passing order of
termination of services or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information,
the employer may take notice of special
circumstances of the case, if any, while
giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take
into
consideration
the
government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the
decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression
or false information of involvement in a
criminal case where conviction or acquittal
had already been recorded before filling of
the application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of employer,
any of the following recourses appropriate
to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature
in which conviction had been recorded,
such as shouting slogans at young age or
for a petty offence which if disclosed
would not have rendered an incumbent
unfit for post in question, the employer
may,
in
its
discretion,
ignore
such
suppression of fact or false information by
condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has
been recorded in case which is not trivial in
nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already
been recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
nature, on technical ground and it is not a
case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the
employer may consider all relevant facts
available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance
of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the
employee has made declaration truthfully
of a concluded criminal case, the employer
still has the right to consider antecedents,
and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate.
 38.6. In case when fact has been
truthfully declared in character verification
form regarding pendency of a criminal case
of trivial nature, employer, in facts and
circumstances of the case, in its discretion,
may appoint the candidate subject to
decision of such case.
 38.7. In a case of deliberate
suppression of fact with respect to multiple
pending cases such false information by
itself will assume significance and an
employer may pass appropriate order
cancelling
candidature
or
terminating
services as appointment of a person against
whom
multiple
criminal
cases
were
pending may not be proper.

38.8.
If
criminal
case
was
pending but not known to the candidate at
the time of filling the form, still it may
have adverse impact and the appointing
authority
would
take
decision
after
considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is
confirmed in service, holding departmental
enquiry would be necessary before passing
order of termination/removal or dismissal
on the ground of suppression or submitting
false information in verification form.

38.10.
For
determining
suppression
or
false
information
attestation/verification form has to be
specific, not vague. Only such information
4 All. Nagendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
155
which was required to be specifically
mentioned
has
to
be
disclosed.
If
information not asked for but is relevant
comes to knowledge of the employer the
same can be considered in an objective
manner while addressing the question of
fitness. However, in such cases action
cannot be taken on basis of suppression or
submitting false information as to a fact
which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held
guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable
to him."

19. No doubt, upon a reading of
what has been remarked in paragraph
No.33 and sub-para (9) of paragraph No.38
of Avtar Singh, it would seem that holding
a departmental inquiry is imperative before
an order of termination, removal or
dismissal is passed against a public servant
on the ground of suppression or submitting
false information in the verification form, if
the employee has been confirmed in
service. But, the holding in Avtar Singh
has to be understood in the context of facts
and the issue, in regard to which principles
there were laid down. It is a principle too
well settled to brook doubt that a judgment
is a precedent for what it actually decides.
A fortiori, the principles laid down in a
judgment have to be understood in the
context of facts and the controversy
involved, giving rise to the lis.

20. The three Judge Bench of their
Lordships in Avtar Singh had before them
a conflicting opinion of two Judge Division
Benches,
that
were
referred
for
authoritative
pronouncement
by
the
Division Bench in Jainendra Singh v.
State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748. The
Division Bench in Jainendra Singh
(supra) had noted divided opinion amongst
various Division Benches, comprising two
Judges of the Supreme Court on the
question, if 'suppression of information or
submitting
false
information
in
the
verification form as to the question of
having
been
criminally
prosecuted,
arrested or as to pendency of a criminal
case', would have on the rights of an
employee appointed to government service.
It was in the context of the said question
and conflicting opinion that the three Judge
Bench of their Lordships in Avtar Singh
laid down the principles noted above. It is,
therefore, evident that the principles in
Avtar Singh have been culled out in the
context of suppression or the furnishing of
false information at the time of recruitment
by a government servant upon his right to
continue in
service,
once
facts
are
discovered. These have no application to a
case, that is founded purely on a charge of
securing employment fraudulently by a
candidate
on
the
basis
of
forged
educational
qualifications,
governing
eligibility, or so to speak, essential
qualifications. In our opinion, therefore,
reliance placed by the petitioner on the
principles in Avtar Singh would not be of
much help to him.

21. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has reposed faith in the Bench
decision of this Court in Parmi Maurya
(supra). He has drawn the Court's attention
to paragraphs Nos.7, 9 and 10 of the report
in Parmi Maurya. These read:

"7. On these facts, the learned
Single Judge, in our view, was clearly in
error in arrogating to the Court the task of
determining whether the certificate and
mark sheets submitted by the appellant
were genuine or otherwise. This, with
respect, was no part of the jurisdiction of
the writ Court under Article 226 of the
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution. When a substantive charge of
misconduct is levied against an employee
of the State, the misconduct has to be
proved in the course of a disciplinary
inquiry. This is not one of those cases
where
a
departmental
inquiry
was
dispensed with or that the ground for
dispensing with such an inquiry was made
out.
The
U.P.
Government
Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 lays
down a detailed procedure in Rule 7 for
imposing a major penalty. Admittedly, no
procedure of that kind was followed since
no disciplinary inquiry was convened or
held.

9. The facts of the present case
are, therefore, clearly distinguishable. The
charge of misconduct has to be duly
established. Since no disciplinary inquiry
was held, the charge was never proved.

10. In this view of the matter, we
are of the view that the judgement and
order of the learned Single Judge is
unsustainable and the special appeal would
have to be allowed. We, accordingly, allow
the special appeal in terms of the following
directions:

(i) The judgement of the learned
Single Judge dated 24 September 2013 is
quashed and set aside;

(ii) In consequence, the order of
termination dated 30 November 2010 shall
stand quashed and;

(iii) The respondents shall be at
liberty to hold a departmental inquiry in
respect of the allegation of misconduct and
take necessary action thereafter as may be
warranted in accordance with law."

22. It is no doubt true that upon
reading the facts in Parmi Maurya, it does
seem that the principle there comes close to
the point that arises here, but Parmi
Maurya was a case after which the
principle has received attention of the
Supreme Court, that may not at all endorse
Parmi Maurya. The issue was examined
by this Court in Narendra Kumar
Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 2021
(1) ADJ 654, and after an elaborate
reference to Punjab Urban Planning &
Development Authority v. Karamjit
Singh, (2019) 16 SCC 782, this Court held:

"13. It is thus manifest that it has
been the consistent view of our Courts that
where the appointment is alleged to have
been secured by fraud or misrepresentation,
the normal rules governing the conduct of
disciplinary proceedings were not liable to
be followed. This since the termination in
such a situation is not on account of a
misconduct committed during the course of
employment. All that is required in such a
situation is to place the employee on notice
and
comply
with
the
fundamental
principles of natural justice.

14. Parmi Maurya was a case
where the charge of fabrication was
seriously disputed and challenged by the
employee who had also not been provided
access to the material on the basis of which
that charge was sought to be established. It
becomes pertinent to recollect that contrary
to the above, the petitioner here does not
dispute the charge of fabrication. The
decision is thus clearly distinguishable and
does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
The decision in Abhiram merely follows
the aforesaid decision without noticing the
other decisions of this Court as well as the
Supreme Court which have consistently
held to the contrary and in unequivocal
terms laid down the law to be that a regular
departmental enquiry is not liable to be
drawn where the initial appointment has
been obtained by practise of fraud and is
thus void and non-est. This of course
subject to the caveat and as held herein
above, that the rudimentary principles of
4 All. Nagendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
157
natural justice must necessarily be adhere
to and followed."

23. We must remark that Parmi
Maurya was a case, where the charge of
fabrication was seriously disputed and
challenged by the employee, whereas in
Narendra Kumar Tripathi (supra), the
charge of fabrication was described by the
Court as not disputed. It was one of the
parameters on which Parmi Maurya was
held not to apply in the case of Narendra
Kumar Tripathi. Of course, it was held
also not applicable when followed in
Abhiram (supra) for reason that Abhiram
had followed Parmi Maurya without
noticing other decisions of this Court and
the Supreme Court, where a contrary view
was taken. It must also be remarked here
that though the petitioner in this case,
unlike
Narendra
Kumar
Tripathi,
disputes the charge of his 'O' level
computer certificate being forged, but the
denial is one that is there for a formality.

24. We say so because the
petitioner does not dispute the document,
which he says is a certificate of an 'O' level
in computers, earned from the University of
Kolkatta, as he says, and also does not
dispute the genuineness of the verification
report dated 26.09.2023, secured by the
respondents
from
the
University
of
Calcutta, disowning the petitioner's 'O'
level
certificate
in
computers.
The
petitioner, if he wanted, could have
disputed
the
verification
report
by
producing a report to the contrary from the
University of Calcutta, affirming the
certificate of 'O' level in computers, on
which he relies to support his candidature.
If this were the case, the matter might have
then been one involving sufficient dispute
on facts about the charge as would oblige
the respondents in case of a confirmed
employee, like the petitioner, to hold
disciplinary proceedings. This is a case
where the fraud and forgery are hardly
denied and both are apparent to the face.

25. We have perused the photostat
copy of the 'O' level computer certificate,
on which the petitioner relies and annexed
as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit filed by
the Director, Internal Account and Audit,
Directorate, U.P., Lucknow, in reply to the
show cause. The certificate is mentioned in
paragraph No.8 of the affidavit aforesaid by
the Director. The petitioner has filed a
counter affidavit to this affidavit filed by
the Director. In paragraph No.7 of the
counter affidavit filed by the petitioner, the
contents of paragraph Nos.7 to 11 of the
Director's affidavit (in reply to the show
cause) have been answered. It is said that
all these paragraphs are wrong, incorrect
and denied, but the averments there do not
at all say that the document annexed as
Annexure No.1 to the Director's affidavit is
not the 'O' level computer certificate, upon
which the petitioner relies to found his
candidature. All that is said is that the
petitioner did his 'O' level computer course
from the Technical Institute after studying
at the said institute from 10.07.2012 to
05.08.2013. He has annexed, along with his
counter affidavit, a true copy of the identity
card issued by the Technical Institute and a
copy of the certificate also granted by the
same Institute. Thus, for a fact, the
document annexed as Annexure No.1,
being the certificate relating to 'O' level in
computers dated 22.08.2013, upon which
the petitioner relied before the respondents
to support his candidature, is not denied.

26. We have also looked into the
certificate issued by the Technical Institute,
where the petitioner says, he read for a year
to earn the aforesaid certificate from the
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
University of Kolkatta. It is a photostat
copy of the certificate dated 15.03.2022.
The letterhead of the Technical Institute on
its face does not show it to be affiliated to
the University of Calcutta and the contents
thereof saying that the petitioner studied at
the Institute are written by hand. Not to say
that a hand written certificate cannot be
issued by an authorized and authentic
educational institute, but ex facie a look at
the certificate does not inspire confidence
at all that the Technical Institute has
anything to do with the University of
Calcutta. The certificate of 'O' level in
computers, upon which the petitioner has
relied, reads at the top of it "UNIVERSITY
of Kolkatta WITH INDIAN TECHNICAL
INSTITUTE (An Autonomous Scientific
Society of Department of Information
Technology Ministry of Communication
and Information Technology, Government
of India for Accreditation of Computer
Courses under the (AICTE-DIT Scheme).
On the left side at the top of this certificate
is the University's monogram, describing it
as 'University of Calcutta' and the
monogram by the rest of its content and
design is the same as that used by the
University of Calcutta. But, at the top, the
University is described as the 'University
of Kolkatta'. The University of Calcutta in
none of its papers or websites describes
itself as the University of Kolkatta. These
are stark facts, which show ex facie the
certificate to be the product of forgery. In
addition, the way the certificate describes it
to have been issued by the University of
Kolkatta with the Technical Institute,
which does not mention where this
Technical Institute is located, makes the
inference of forgery inescapable.

27.
Then
there
are
other
irresponsible things written on the head of
the certificate, reproduced hereinabove. It
describes the Technical Institute as an
Autonomous
Scientific
Society
of
Department of Information Technology,
Ministry
of
Communication
and
Information Technology, Government of
India for Accreditation of Computer
Courses under the (AICTE-DIT Scheme).
There is nothing to show that this Institute
is anyway an Autonomous Scientific
Society of the Department of Information
Technology etc. of the Government of
India.