# Ranjit Sharma v. General Manager-Personal Service, UCO Bank Kolkatta & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 983
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-08-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14637 of 2010
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjit-sharma-v-general-manager-personal-service-uco-bank-kolkatta-ors-43062
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.-226-Writ
Petition-challenging
dismissal
order-on
ground non compliance of principle of
Natural Justice-concealed material fact
that the disciplinary proceeding conducted
strict in accordance with law with full
opportunity-due to fraud and manipulation
committed by petitioner-termination due
to loss of confidence-petitioner guilty of
suppressing
material
fact,-disciplinary
authority
taking
different
view
than
enquiry officer-issued show cause noticeinstead of filing reply-present petition-not
maintainable-dismissed
with
cost
of
20,000/-payable to bank.

Held: Para-28
The
petitioner
was
given
ample
opportunity, the evidence was led by the
bank against the petitioner which was
proved on the basis of records available in
the normal course of business. The factum
of the allegations is not being denied by
the petitioner, however, explanations have
been given. Since the bank has lost money
by fraud and manipulation committed by
the petitioner while working as Computer
Terminal Operator, his services was rightly
terminated for loss of confidence and
unsuitability by the Bank. The petitioner is
guilty of not approaching the Court with
clean hands.

## Text

2 All]. Ranjit Sharma Vs. General Manager-Personal Service UCO Bank Kolkatta & Ors.
983

18. Thus in view of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh (supra) and the
Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra
(Supra) this writ petition filed in the
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench is
not maintainable and is dismissed as such.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14637 of 2010

Ranjit Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
General Manager-Personal Service, UCO
Bank Kolkatta & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sharad Malviya, Sri A.N. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri T.P. Singh, Sri V.K. Srivastava

Constitution
of
India-Art.-226-Writ
Petition-challenging
dismissal
order-on
ground non compliance of principle of
Natural Justice-concealed material fact
that the disciplinary proceeding conducted
strict in accordance with law with full
opportunity-due to fraud and manipulation
committed by petitioner-termination due
to loss of confidence-petitioner guilty of
suppressing
material
fact,-disciplinary
authority
taking
different
view
than
enquiry officer-issued show cause noticeinstead of filing reply-present petition-not
maintainable-dismissed
with
cost
of
20,000/-payable to bank.

Held: Para-28
The
petitioner
was
given
ample
opportunity, the evidence was led by the
bank against the petitioner which was
proved on the basis of records available in
the normal course of business. The factum
of the allegations is not being denied by
the petitioner, however, explanations have
been given. Since the bank has lost money
by fraud and manipulation committed by
the petitioner while working as Computer
Terminal Operator, his services was rightly
terminated for loss of confidence and
unsuitability by the Bank. The petitioner is
guilty of not approaching the Court with
clean hands.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharad Malviya
assisted by Sri A.N. Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Sri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was working as
Computer Terminal Operator (CTO) in
Laxman Patti Branch of UCO Bank at
Bhadohi, for committing irregularities
was placed under suspension, a chargesheet containing seven charges was issued
to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted
reply to the charge-sheet on 12.9.2006
denying
the
allegations,
hence,
an
Enquiry Officer was appointed who after
conducting the enquiry recorded a finding
on 18.2.2009 that charge nos. 2 and 5 are
proved and charge nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are
not proved against the petitioner.

3. The Disciplinary Authority
disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer in respect of charge nos. 1, 3, 4, 6
and 7, but agreed with the finds in respect
of charge nos. 2 and 5 vide order dated
31.3.2008 and issued notice calling upon
the petitioner to show cause. The
petitioner submitted his reply on 9.4.2008
to the Disciplinary Authority pertaining to
the charge nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. The
Disciplinary
Authority
after
giving
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opportunity of personal hearing, recorded
a finding that the allegations against the
petitioner stood proved and by the
impugned order dated 16.5.2008 imposed
major penalty in terms of para 6(a) of
Memorandum
of
Settlement
dated
10.4.2002 dismissing the petitioner from
service.

4. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred
an appeal before the General Manager,
Personal Services, UCO Bank, Head
Office, Kolkata, the Appellate Authority
considered the appeal and by detailed
order dated 4.5.2009 affirmed the findings
of the disciplinary authority, recording
that for the reason of unsuitability and
loss
of
confidence,
quantum
of
punishment was being upheld.

5. Aggrieved, the orders dated
16.5.2008 and 4.5.2009 are being assailed
in the writ petition.

6. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner had
denied the allegations and once the
Enquiry Officer had only proved two of
the charges but the Disciplinary Authority
without considering the findings and
reasoning recorded by the Enquiry Officer
has held all the charges proved thus
holding the petitioner guilty, the findings
are based on conjectures and surmises, no
show cause notice was issued by the
Disciplinary Authority on disagreement
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer,
the findings are ex parte without adequate
opportunity
and
the
quantum
of
punishment is not commensurate to the
guilt.

7. In rebuttal, learned Senior
Advocate submits that the procedure, as
prescribed under the agreement was duly
followed, the petitioner was given ample
opportunity to explain, the Enquiry
Officer proved two charges and for the
findings on other charges, Disciplinary
Authority disagreed, accordingly, a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner,
to
which,
the
petitioner
replied,
considering the reply and giving personal
hearing the impugned order was passed.
The
Appellate
Authority
has
also
considered the appeal and recorded a
finding affirming the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority. Further the Senior
Advocate submits that the petitioner has
not approached the Court with clean
hands, as the petitioner nowhere disclosed
that the Disciplinary Authority had
disagreed with the findings of the enquiry
report in respect of unproved charges and
a show cause notice was issued which
was replied to by the petitioner, hence the
petition is liable to be dismissed on this
count alone. In support of his submission,
learned Senior Advocate has relied upon
the following judgments; State Bank of
Patiala and others vs. S.K. Sharma (1996)
3 SCC 364; Lucknow K. Gramin Bank
(Now Allahabad, U.P. Gramin Bank) &
Anr. vs. Rajendra Singh AIR 2013 SC
3540 and S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India
and another (2013) 6 SCC 602

8. Rival submissions fall for
consideration.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of
State of Madras vs. G. Sundaram AIR
1965 SC 1103 had explained the scope of
judicial review::-

"7. It is well settled now that a High
Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
cannot sit in appeal over the findings of
fact recorded by a competent Tribunal in
2 All]. Ranjit Sharma Vs. General Manager-Personal Service UCO Bank Kolkatta & Ors.
985
a
properly
conducted
departmental
enquiry except when it be shown that the
impugned findings were not supported by
any evidence. It was so held in State of
Orissa v. Murlidhar, AIR 1963 SC 404,
where it was said at p. 408:

"Whether or not the evidence on
which the Tribunal relied was satisfactory
and sufficient for justifying its conclusion
would not fall to be considered in a writ
petition. That in effect is the approach
initially adopted by the High Court at the
beginning of its judgment. However, in
the subsequent part of the judgment the
High Court appears to have been
persuaded to appreciate the evidence for
itself, and that, in our opinion, is not
reasonable or legitimate."

8.Similar view was emphatically
expressed in State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Sree Rama Rao, AIR1968 SC 1728,
wherein it was said at p. 1726:

"The High Court is not constituted in
a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution a Court of appeal over the
decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public
servant; it is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an
authority competent in that behalf, and
according to the procedure prescribed in
that behalf, and whether the rules of
natural justice are not violated. Where
there is some evidence, which the
authority entrusted with the duty to hold
the enquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is
guilty of the charge, it is not the function
of the High Court in a petition for a writ
under Article 226 to review the evidence
and to arrive at an independent finding on
the evidence. But the departmental
authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise
properly held the sole judges of facts and
if there be some legal evidence on which
their findings can be based, the adequacy
or reliability of that evidence is not a
matter which can be permitted to be
canvassed before the High Court in a
proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of
the Constitution."

9. It is, therefore, clear that the High
Court was not competent to consider the
question whether the evidence before the
Tribunal
and
the
Government
was
insufficient or unreliable to establish the
charge against the respondent. It could
have considered only the fact whether
there was any evidence at all which, if
believed by the Tribunal, would establish
the charge against the respondent.
Adequacy of that evidence to sustain the
charge is not a question before the High
Court when exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. This
view was reiterated in Union of India v.
H. C. Goel,."

10. In State Bank of India vs.
Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-

"13. We are, therefore, clearly of the
view that the High Court was erred both
in law and on facts in interfering with the
findings of the Inquiry Officer, the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority by acting as a court of appeal
and re- appreciating the evidence.

In the case of T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd.
and Ors. (appellants) v. K. Meerabai
(respondent) (2006) 2 SCC 255, the plea
of no loss or quantum of loss was rejected
by the Court. It was pointed out at page
SCC 267 para 29 as under:
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"29. Mr. Francis also submitted that
a sum of Rs. 34,436.85 being 5% of the
total loss of Rs. 6,88,735/- is sought to be
recovered from the respondent and that
the present departmental proceedings is
the only known allegation against the
respondent and there was no such
allegation earlier and, therefore, a lenient
view should be taken by this Court and
relief prayed for by both the parties can
be suitably moulded by this Court. We are
unable
to
agree
with
the
above
submission which, in our opinion, has no
force. The scope of judicial review is very
limited. Sympathy or generosity as a
factor is impermissible. In our view, loss
of confidence is the primary factor and
not
the
amount
of
money
misappropriated.
In
the
instant
case,
respondent employee is found guilty of
mis- appropriating the Corporation funds.
There
is
nothing
wrong
in
the
Corporation losing confidence or faith in
such
an
employee
and
awarding
punishment of dismissal. In such cases,
there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the
judicial forums and interfering therefor
with the quantum of punishment awarded
by
the
disciplinary
and
Appellate
Authority."

11. The Supreme Court recently in
Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat and
another
(2013)
4
SCC 301)
after
considering earlier judgments has again
reiterated the principle of judicial review
in disciplinary proceedings and held that
in the departmental enquiry, the nature
and standard of proof is not at par with
the quasi judicial and quasi criminal
proceedings;
the
principle
of
preponderance is applicable and not the
doctrine of proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

12. The Apex Court further
considered the parameter of the Court's
power of judicial review of administrative
action or decision. The relevant portion of
the judgment of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra)
is as follows:-

"The
decisions
referred
to
hereinabove
highlights
clearly,
the
parameter of the Court's power of judicial
review
of
administrative
action
or
decision. An order can be set-aside if it is
based on extraneous grounds, or when
there are no grounds at all for passing it
or when the grounds are such that, no one
can reasonably arrive at the opinion. The
Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal
but, it merely reviews the manner in
which the decision was made. The Court
will not normally exercise its power of
judicial review unless it is found that
formation of belief by the statutory
authority
suffers
from
malafides,dishonest/corrupt practice. In
other words, the authority must act in
good faith. Neither the question as to
whether there was sufficient evidence
before
the
authority
can
be
raised/examined, nor the question of reappreciating the evidence to examine the
correctness of the order under challenge.
If there are sufficient grounds for passing
an order, then even if one of them is found
to be correct, and on its basis the order
impugned can be passed, there is no
occasion for the Court to interfere. The
jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined
to correct errors of law or procedural
error, if any, resulting in manifest
miscarriage of justice or violation of
principles of natural justice. This apart,
even when some defect is found in the
decision- making process, the Court must
exercise its discretionary power with
great caution keeping in mind the larger
2 All]. Ranjit Sharma Vs. General Manager-Personal Service UCO Bank Kolkatta & Ors.
987
public interest and only when it comes to
the conclusion that overwhelming public
interest requires interference, the Court
should intervene."

13. Supreme Court in the case of
S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India and
another [(2013) 6 SCC 602] observed as
follows:-

"30. The findings of fact recorded by
a court can be held to be perverse if the
findings have been arrived at by ignoring
or excluding relevant material or by
taking
into
consideration
irrelevant/inadmissible
material.
The
finding may also be said to be perverse if
it is against the weight of evidence, or if
the finding so outrageously defies logic as
to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a
decision is arrived at on the basis of no
evidence
or
thoroughly
unreliable
evidence and no reasonable person would
act upon it, the order would be perverse.
But if there is some evidence on record
which is acceptable and which could be
relied upon, the conclusions would not be
treated as perverse and the findings
would not be interfered with. (Vide:
Rajinder
Kumar
Kindra
v.
Delhi
Administration, AIR 1984 SC 1805;
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police
& Ors., AIR 1999 SC 677; Gamini Bala
Koteswara Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh thr. Secretary, AIR 2010 SC 589;
and Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9
SCC 189).

31. Hence, where there is evidence of
malpractice,
gross
irregularity
or
illegality, interference is permissible."

14. I have perused the record, it is
not disputed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that there has been any
illegality or infirmity in the procedure
followed in conducting the disciplinary
proceedings. The charges, briefly, against
the petitioner is as follows:-

(1)While working as, Computer
Terminal Operator (CTO), petitioner by
using the pass word of Sri Paltoo Ram,
Assistant Manager, in making entires i.e.
debit and credit in the various books of
accounts in spite of the petitioner having a
separate pass word.

(2)While working as CTO the basic
duty of the petitioner is to sit on the
computer for doing the data work with the
computer but for the last two months he
was doing the balancing work of CFD and
GLB under the instructions of the
Manager. But on verification of records
no such office order was issued to the
petitioner for doing balancing work.

(3)The petitioner was taking the
voucher lots from Sri Krishna Madhab
continuously for some days for balancing
work and used to return the vouchers in
late hours. It was observed that while
fluids was intentionally dropped on the
account holders signature of Saving
Banks Account Nos. 474 and 2323 on
bearer cheque no. 342796 dated 3.8.2006
which was paid on 7.8.2006 thus the
petitioner
has
tampered
with
the
vouchers/cheque(s)
to
distort
the
genuineness of a/c holders signatures.

(4)While
working
as
CTO
the
petitioner entered the cheque book serial nos.
in in-operative Savings Bank Account of Sri
Rama Shankar Yadav and the same serial
numbers was again entered in the inoperative Savings Bank Account no. 2323 of
Smt. Pramila Devi on 1.6.2006 by changing
the cheque series thus the petitioner by
entering the cheque book in the in-operative
savings accounts by using the pass word of
Sri Paltoo Ram, Assistant Manager.
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(5)Petitioner has obtained motorcycle loan of Rs. 24,000/- from H.D.F.C.
Bank without obtaining permission from
Bank. Thus violating the rules of the
bank.

(6)Due to aforesaid act committed by
the petitioner, fraud of Rs. 1,75,500/- was
committed in the in-operative Savings
Banks Account and as such bank may
suffer or likely to suffer a loss of the
above amount(s).

(7)Petitioner was also issued chargesheet on 27.12.2004 in connection with
the composite frauds case at Branch
Office Bhadohi where loss of Rs. 3.60
lacs. The petitioner was punished with
recovery of Rs. 40,000/- for causing loss.
Keeping in view of the petitioner's past
record and involvement in fraud case in
Branch Office Bhadohi, it appears that the
activities/action of the petitioner is
suspicious in nature and might have been
involved in tampering of record/vouchers
by using pass word of Sri Paltoo Ram,
Assistant Manager.

15. The petitioner in his reply to the
charge-sheet did not dispute the factum of
the allegations but explained, by stating,
that on the verbal orders of the Branch
Manager, the petitioner was doing the
work of balancing the accounts books
apart from the allotted work, however,
denied that he had used the pass word of
Sri
Paltoo
Ram,
who
operate the
computers, neither the signatures of
Paltoo Ram nor of the petitioner have
been found on the vouchers, regarding the
irregularity of the cheque serial number,
petitioner submitted that every employee
of the bank is aware of the serial numbers,
thus, denying that the petitioner had
committed
any
fraud
or
misrepresentation, but admitted that fraud
was committed in respect of the serial
numbers
using
the
pass
word
of
Paltooram.

16. Enquiry Officer conducted the
enquiry, which was held on several dates, as
mentioned in the enquiry report, the
petitioner pleaded his case himself and did
not appoint any defense representative. The
bank appointed its presenting officer and
produced over 44 exhibits which include the
copy of the cheques, signatures, vouchers,
employment register, security print register,
Assistance register, cheque leave status,
withdrawal slip of savings bank account.

17. Apart from the exhibits, the
presenting officer produced the witnesses
on behalf of the bank.

18. The Enquiry Officer after
considering the evidences found charges
no. 2 and 5 proved and the rest not
proved.

19.

The
disciplinary
authority
disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer on the non-proved charges and
issued a show cause notice on 31.3.2008
conveying to the petitioner the disagreement
on the Enquiry Officer's report dated
18.2.2008.
The
disciplinary
authority
recorded that the Enquiry Officer failed to
understand the modus operandi applied by
the petitioner, who has very cleverly
executed and succeeded in perpetrating the
fraud of Rs. 1,75,500/- from in-operative
accounts and clandestinely got authorized
by using the pass word of Sri Paltooram.

20. Pursuant to the dissent note,
petitioner submitted a detailed reply on
9.4.2008.
Disciplinary
Authority
after
considering the reply, issued a show cause
2 All]. Ranjit Sharma Vs. General Manager-Personal Service UCO Bank Kolkatta & Ors.
989
notice on 2.5.2008 regarding the proposed
penalty, after considering the reply by a
detailed order dated 16.5.2008, after giving
personal hearing to the petitioner, imposed
punishment of dismissal. Aggrieved the
petitioner preferred an appeal, reiterating
the facts stated in his reply to the chargesheet as well as, to the show cause notice,
which was considered and rejected by the
appellate authority by order dated 4.5.2009.
The operative portion of the appellate order
is extracted below:-

"I have considered all aspects in the
matter independently with an unbiased
mind
and
find
that
although
the
involvement of Sri Sharma in the fraud
was not conclusively proved in the
enquiry beyond doubt but Disciplinary
proceedings is not a criminal trial and is
based on preponderance of probability
and not a proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. The charges leveled and proved in
the enquiry against Sri Sharma are
serious and grave in nature. Bank is a
financial institution and it cannot afford
to have such employees in whom the Bank
has lost faith. Therefore, there is no room
for showing any leniency in the matter.
Accordingly I, as Appellate Authority, am
not inclined to interfere with the order
dated
16.5.2008
passed
by
the
Disciplinary Authority and uphold the
penalty imposed by him upon Sri Sharma.
Hence, the appeal dated 31.5.2008
preferred by Sri Sharma to reinstate him
in service, is rejected."

21. It is thus evident that the entire
procedure as prescribed was followed, the
petitioner
was
given
ample
and
reasonable opportunity. The factum of the
allegations is not denied by the petitioner,
however, explanations was furnished
which was not agreed to by the
disciplinary authority as well as by the
appellate authority. The Court finds no
illegality with the impugned orders.

22. It is also relevant to point out that
the petitioner has not approached the Court
with clean hands, nowhere in the writ
petition it has been pleaded that disciplinary
authority had disagreed with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer and a show cause notice
was given to the petitioner to which the
petitioner submitted his reply, rather a
specific stand and ground has been taken that
no show cause notice was issued by the
disciplinary authority while disagreeing with
Enquiry Officer.

23. In paragraph 7 of the writ
petition it has been stated that on the basis
of enquiry report, the petitioner was
dismissed from service without giving
any further notice calling upon the
petitioner to submit his reply with regard
to the proposed punishment.

24. Learned counsel for the
petitioner emphasized on the plea that no
show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner by the disciplinary authority
while disagreeing with the findings of the
enquiry report, thus, the enquiry stood
vitiated, in support of his argument he has
relied upon the judgment rendered in
Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari
Mishra AIR 1998 SC 2713. The Court on
5.8.2014 directed the learned counsel for
the respondent to inform the Court, as to
whether any show cause notice was issued
by
the
disciplinary
authority
while
disagreeing with the findings of the
enquiry officer. On 11.8.2014 a second
supplementary affidavit was filed on
behalf of the bank, brining on record, the
show
cause
notice
issued
by
the
disciplinary authority, as well as, the reply
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed by the petitioner pursuant thereof,
thus, it is evident that the petitioner has
tried to misrepresent with a view to obtain
favourable
order,
thus,
has
not
approached the Court with clean hands .

25. Supreme Court in the case of V.
Chandrashekaran
and
another
vs.
Administrative Officer and others [(2012)
12 SCC 133 observed that a petition or
affidavit
containing
misleading
or
inaccurate statement amounts to abuse of
process of Court, a litigant cannot take in
consistent positions. The Court imposed
cost of Rs. 25 lacs. Paras 45, 46 and 47
are as follows:-

"45. The judicial process cannot
become an instrument of oppression or
abuse, or a means in the process of the
court to subvert justice, for the reason
that the court exercises its jurisdiction,
only in furtherance of justice. The
interests of justice and public interest
coalesce, and therefore, they are very
often one and the same. A petition or an
affidavit containing a misleading and/or
an inaccurate statement, only to achieve
an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse
of process of the court.

46.In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. &
Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court
noticed an altogether new creed of
litigants, that is, dishonest litigants and
went on to strongly deprecate their
conduct by observing that, the truth
constitutes an integral part of the justice
delivery system. The quest for personal
gain has become so intense that those
involved in litigation do not hesitate to
seek
shelter
of
falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of
facts in the course of court proceedings. A
litigant who attempts to pollute the stream
of justice, or who touches the pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is
not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

47. The truth should be the guiding
star in the entire judicial process. Every
trial is a voyage of discovery in which
truth is the quest. An action at law is not a
game of chess, therefore, a litigant cannot
prevaricate
and
take
inconsistent
positions. It is one of those fundamental
principles of jurisprudence that litigants
must observe total clarity and candour in
their pleadings. (Vide: Ritesh Tewari &
Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
(2010) 10 SCC 677; and Amar Singh v.
Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69).

26. In Ram Chandra Singh vs.
Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319 Hon'ble
Supreme Court held:-

"23. Recently this Court by an order
dated 3 rd September, 2003 in Ram Preeti
Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School &
Intermediate Education held: (SCC pp.
316-317, paras 13-15)

"13. Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which induces the other
person, or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of former either by words or
letter. Although negligence is not fraud
but it can be evidence on fraud. (See
Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 AC 337)

14. In Lazarus Estates v. Beasley the
Court of Appeal stated the law thus: (All
ER p. 345 C-D)

"I cannot accede to this argument for a
moment "no Court in this land will allow a
person to keep an advantage which he has
obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court,
no order of a Minister, can be allowed to
2 All]. A.S.P. Sealing Products Ltd. J.P. Nagar Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner Moradabad & Ors. 991
stand if it has been obtained by fraud.
Fraud unravels everything". The Court is
careful not to find fraud unless it is
distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it
is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts
and all transactions whatsoever."

15. In S.P. Chengalyaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath this Court stated that fraud
avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or
temporal."

27. Recently the Supreme Court in
the case of Smt. Badami (Deceased) vs.
Bhali
2012
(11)
SCC
574
after
considering earlier judgements was of the
view that a party, who secures any order
or judgement by taking recourse to fraud
should not be enabled to enjoy the fruits
thereof. Para 24 is reproduced:-

"Yet in another decision Hamza Haji
vs.
State
of
Kerala
and
Anr.
MANU/SC8416/2006 AIR 2006 SC 3028
it has been held that no Court will allow
itself to be used as an instrument of fraud
and no court, by way of rule of evidence
and procedure, can allow its eyes to be
closed to the fact it is being used as an
instrument of fraud. The basic principle is
that a party who secures the judgement by
taking recourse to fraud should not be
enabled to enjoy the fruits thereof."

28. The petitioner was given ample
opportunity, the evidence was led by the bank
against the petitioner which was proved on the
basis of records available in the normal course
of business. The factum of the allegations is
not being denied by the petitioner, however,
explanations have been given. Since the bank
has lost money by fraud and manipulation
committed by the petitioner while working as
Computer Terminal Operator, his services
was rightly terminated for loss of confidence
and unsuitability by the Bank. The petitioner
is guilty of not approaching the Court with
clean hands.

29. In view of the law and reasons
stated, herein above, the writ petition fails
and is, accordingly, dismissed.

30. Cost of Rs. 20,000/- is imposed
upon the petitioner, payable to the
respondent Bank within three months, for
dragging the respondents into litigation on
misrepresentation and suppression of
material facts.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17689 of 2001

A.S.P. Sealing Products Ltd. J.P. Nagar
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Labour Commissioner Moradabad &
Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of
wages) Act, 1978-Section-3-Recovery against
petitioner/management-for
Rs.
26530/-
recovery certificate issued with collection
charges-argument
that
amount
not
exceeding 50,000/-R.C. Without jurisdictionheld-wage to bill below Rs. 50,000/-beyond
perview of Act-without jurisdiction-quashedany amount deposited in pursuance of interim
order shall be refunded.

Held: Para-5
Having heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel and