# Virendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 1073
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11846 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53712
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

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

Issue for consideration
 Whether a regular departmental enquiry is
required in cases where the petitioner has
submitted forged documents?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Basic Educational
Staffs Rules, 1973: Rule 3(v)(vi) - In case
the employment has been obtained based
on fraudulent documents on concealing
material facts, the beneficiary of such
fraud cannot seek that proper procedure
as prescribed under Rule 1999 must be
followed. (Para 26)

Fraudulently
obtained
order
of
appointment or approval can be recalled
by the authority concerned. In such cases
merely because the employee continued in
service for a number of years, on the basis
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of fraudulently obtained orders, cannot
create any equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer/authority.
When an appointment or approval has been
obtained by a person on the basis of forged
documents,
it
would
amount
to
misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. It
would create no equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer to cancel such
appointment or approval since "Fraud and
justice never dwell together." (Para 24)

When any selection/recruitment or appointment
to some post was made illegally and it is noticed
on the complaint or at subsequent stage that
illegalities,
irregularities,
improprieties,
procedural infirmities and deficiencies and
defects have occurred, forgery or foul-play
adopted or non observance of Act, rules, norms
were made in process then the beneficiary
candidate, who has become output and
product
of
such
defective
and
bad
selection or outcome of spoiled system
process, shall have no right or claim to the
post or salary or any consequential
benefits in the service. (Para 25)

In the present case, charges levelled against
petitioner were found proved that he has
committed
forgery
and
submitted
forged
documents. Petitioner has failed to bring on
record any document which could contradict the
reasons given in inquiry report as well as in
impugned order. The issue of not providing
inquiry report of STF as well as charge sheet to
petitioner, though it has been denied by
respondents, does not exist as in the order
impugned itself it has been mentioned that
notices as well as proper opportunities were
provided to the petitioner, nonetheless, the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate the
authenticity of his educational documents.
Therefore, a person such as petitioner, who has
procured appointment as Teacher on basis of
forged educational documents, cannot be
entitled for any sympathy and he is required to
be dealt with strictly. (Para 27, 28)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

8 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1073
stage from where the procedure has gone
flawed. In the case of Managing Director
ECIL Hydrabad etc v B. Karunakar etc
etc AIR 1994 SC 1074 . Constitution
Bench
of
Supreme
Court
has
very
categorically held that in matter of
disciplinary proceedings if the proceedings
have to be set aside then it should be
remanded from the stage from which it has
become erroneous and the status of the
employee should be such as was on the
date of passing of the impugned order.

18. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

19.
The
inquiry
report
dated
18.04.2024 and the order of punishment
dated 15-16/5/2025 are hereby quashed
with all consequential benefits in the sense
that status of petitioner shall remain the
same as was on the date of passing of the
order impugned. The matter is remanded
for fresh inquiry from the stage of reply to
the
charge
sheet
submitted
by
the
petitioner. The disciplinary authority shall
appoint a new inquury officer within a
period of four weeks from the production
of certified copy of this order to hold
domestic inquiry afresh. This time the
inquiry officer shall give due participation
of hearing to the delinquent employee
namely the petitioner in the inquiry and
petitioner shall be permitted to examine the
departmental witness in support of the
documentary evidence. In the event inquiry
officer does not want to summon any
particular witness even upon the request
being made by the petitioner, he shall
record reasons for the same.

20. The domestic enquiry as directed
above
shall
be
concluded
within
a
maximum period of two months upon
notice issued to the petitioner to participate
in the inquiry by the inquiry officer. Soon
after the report is submitted the disciplinary
authority shall proceed to conclude the
proceedings as per the findings returned in
the inquiry report in due compliance of
principles of natural justice within next one
month's time.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1073
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 11846 of 2025

Virendra Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mahendra Singh, Santosh Kumar Mishra

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

Issue for consideration
 Whether a regular departmental enquiry is
required in cases where the petitioner has
submitted forged documents?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Basic Educational
Staffs Rules, 1973: Rule 3(v)(vi) - In case
the employment has been obtained based
on fraudulent documents on concealing
material facts, the beneficiary of such
fraud cannot seek that proper procedure
as prescribed under Rule 1999 must be
followed. (Para 26)

Fraudulently
obtained
order
of
appointment or approval can be recalled
by the authority concerned. In such cases
merely because the employee continued in
service for a number of years, on the basis
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of fraudulently obtained orders, cannot
create any equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer/authority.
When an appointment or approval has been
obtained by a person on the basis of forged
documents,
it
would
amount
to
misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. It
would create no equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer to cancel such
appointment or approval since "Fraud and
justice never dwell together." (Para 24)

When any selection/recruitment or appointment
to some post was made illegally and it is noticed
on the complaint or at subsequent stage that
illegalities,
irregularities,
improprieties,
procedural infirmities and deficiencies and
defects have occurred, forgery or foul-play
adopted or non observance of Act, rules, norms
were made in process then the beneficiary
candidate, who has become output and
product
of
such
defective
and
bad
selection or outcome of spoiled system
process, shall have no right or claim to the
post or salary or any consequential
benefits in the service. (Para 25)

In the present case, charges levelled against
petitioner were found proved that he has
committed
forgery
and
submitted
forged
documents. Petitioner has failed to bring on
record any document which could contradict the
reasons given in inquiry report as well as in
impugned order. The issue of not providing
inquiry report of STF as well as charge sheet to
petitioner, though it has been denied by
respondents, does not exist as in the order
impugned itself it has been mentioned that
notices as well as proper opportunities were
provided to the petitioner, nonetheless, the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate the
authenticity of his educational documents.
Therefore, a person such as petitioner, who has
procured appointment as Teacher on basis of
forged educational documents, cannot be
entitled for any sympathy and he is required to
be dealt with strictly. (Para 27, 28)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan
Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 (Para 7)
2. Smt. Alpana Tiwari and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 17553 of 2011
(Para 9)
3. Vashishth Kushwaha And Another Vs. State
Of U.P. And 5 Others, Writ A No.9445 of 2020
(Para 9)
4. Vasundhara Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. And 4
Others, Writ Petition No. 10044 of 2020 (Para 9)
5. Deepak Kumar Mishra Vs. State Of U.P. And 4
Others, Writ A No. 10324 of 2020 (Para 9)
6. State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Shanker Tripathi (2005)
6 SCC 135 (Para 12)
7. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited and another Vs. Anil Kanwariya, 2021
(10) SCC 136 (Para 20)
8. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajendra D.
Harmalkar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486 (Para 20)
9. Usha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another,
2017 SCC Online All 6109 (Para 21)
10. Nageswar Sonkesri Vs. State of M.P. and
another, 2020 SCC Online MP 4461 (Para 21)
11. Vijay Krishnarao Kurundkar and another Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC
Online SC 834 (Para 22)
12. Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (8)
SCC 748 (Para 23)
13. Union of India Vs. Prohlad Guha etc. 2024,
SCC OnLine SC 1865 (Para 26)

List of Acts/Statutes
U.P. Basic Educational Staffs Rules, 1973; U.P.
Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981;

List of Keywords
Service Law, appointment, salary, reinstate,
forged, departmental enquiry.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Singh, Mr.
Santosh Kumar Mishra
For
Respondent:
Mr.
Ashish
Kumar
(Nagvanshi), C.S.C.

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

1. The instructions passed on to the
Court today, are kept on record.

2. Heard Mr. Mahendra Singh and Mr.
Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
8 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1075
the
petitioner,
Mr.
Ashish
Kumar
Nagvanshi,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent nos.2, 4&5 and Mr. Shailendra
Singh, learned counsel for the Staterespondent.

3. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed
by
respondent
no.4,
whereby
initial
appointment of the petitioner as an
Assistant Teacher has been cancelled and a
further prayer to direct the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner and release the
salary month to month as well as arrears of
the salary.

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

a) the petitioner completed the
requisite qualifications provided under the
U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules,
1981,
i.e.
High
School
and
Intermediate from the U.P. Secondary
Education Board and B.T.C. as a regular
student from Government Training College,
Allahabad.

b) as he possessed the requisite
qualifications required for appointment to
the post of Assistant Teacher, he was
initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on
23.12.1998.

c)
On
12.07.2007,
the
petitioner was transferred from Junior
Basic School, Bhattuwa, Block Korao, to
Junior Basic School Maharaha in the
same Block. Later, at his request, the
petitioner
was
transferred
from
Allahabad to District Deoria, submitting
a notary affidavit stating that he would
not claim seniority. During this period,
the petitioner's work and conduct were
unblemished, there being no complaint
by any authority.

d)
Surprisingly,
after
the
petitioner's transfer from Allahabad to
Deoria, on a complaint regarding his High
School and Intermediate certificates, an
inquiry
was
conducted
behind
the
petitioner's back, without providing him
any notice or opportunity of hearing.
Relying upon the ex-parte report of the
STF, the petitioner was placed under
suspension by order dated 22.12.2023,
passed by the District Basic Education
Officer, Deoria (respondent No. 4).

e) After the inquiry, a charge
sheet was submitted on 28.12.2023, but a
copy of the same was not provided to the
petitioner. However, in response to the
notice
dated
22.05.2024
issued
by
respondent No. 5, the petitioner submitted
a brief reply on 09.07.2024. Subsequently,
the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 was
passed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned order dated
20.11.2024 was passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, as it relies on
an ex-parte report submitted by the Special
Task Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the
STF'). The petitioner was placed under
suspension based on the aforesaid report,
and without being served a charge sheet or
considering the petitioner's reply, the
impugned order was passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner, having
completed his High School, Intermediate,
and B.T.C., was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher in 1998. After so many years of
service, on a baseless complaint, an inquiry
was conducted behind the back of the
petitioner, without notice or opportunity to
respond and the order impugned has been
passed. The report of the Additional
Superintendent of Police, S.T.F. dated
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25.12.2023, has not been served upon the
petitioner.

7. Relying on the judgment of Union
of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan
Khan1, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that it is mandatory to provide the
inquiry report to the delinquent employee
and without furnishing the inquiry report,
any major punishment awarded would be
unsustainable in law.

8. The impugned order has been
passed without following the proper
procedure as prescribed under the relevant
Rules, i.e. Rules 1999, particularly Rule 7,
which mandates a specific procedure that
has not been followed in the present case.

9. Identical matters were filed in Smt.
Alpana Tiwari and others vs. State of U.P.
and others2, Vashishth Kushwaha And
Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others3
Vasundhara Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 4
Others4, and Deepak Kumar Mishra vs.
State Of U.P. And 4 Others5. In these
cases, this Court was pleased to remit the
matters back to the respondent authorities
with directions to provide a copy of the
STF report to the petitioners and pass
appropriate orders after affording them an
adequate opportunity of hearing.

10. The petitioner's case is squarely
covered by the judgments rendered in the
aforesaid matters.

11. The U.P. Basic Educational Staffs
Rules, 1973, specifically Rule 3(v)(vi),
provides for the imposition of major
punishment in cases where there is a
significant loss caused by negligence,
breach, or misconduct. However, upon a
bare perusal of the conduct of the
petitioner, it appears that there is only a
minor negligence or breach, which may not
warrant such a severe penalty.

12. Relying upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs.
Vijay Shanker Tripathi6, learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
submits
that
the
termination order based on ill-founded
allegations of misconduct without any
regular departmental inquiry and without
securing adequate evidence resulting in any
major penalty is invalid. He, therefore,
submits that the punishment order is illegal
and liable to be set aside.

13. Per contra, Sri Ashish Kumar
Nagvanshi,
Advocate
appearing
for
Respondent nos.2,4&5, on the basis of
instructions, submitted that the inquiry was
conducted
in
accordance
with
due
procedure. The charge sheet as well as
enquriy report were served upon the
petitioner,
who
submitted
his
reply,
therefore, on basis of material available, the
Inquiry Officer
assigned reasons for
holding that charges were proved and
thereafter, appointment of petitioner was
cancelled by disciplinary authority. He
further submitted that even a proper inquiry
may not be required in cases where the
petitioner has submitted forged documents.
In the present case, the petitioner failed to
submit any reply to the pointed queries
raised in the charge sheet and notices,
despite repeated notices.

14. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

15. The facts of the case and
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, germinate two issues for
consideration, that would conclude the
controversy concisely in precision. The
8 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1077
first issue before this Court is to consider
that whether the petitioner's appointment
was obtained through fraudulent means?
The second issue before this Court is to
consider that whether the respondent was
justified in cancelling the petitioner's
appointment without conducting proper
inquiry?

16. Perusal of the records as well as
the instructions passed on to the Court
today, it is found that on the basis of STF
report, the petitioner was placed under
suspension and a departmental inquiry was
initiated based on the STF report. Pankaj
Kumar Singh, Block Education Officer,
Desahi, Deoria was nominated as the
Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was served
with a copy of the charge sheet and notice
on 28.12.2023, directing him to submit his
reply within five days. The petitioner
submitted his reply, requesting verification
of his educational certificates from the
Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P.,
Prayagraj.
Subsequently,
the
Inquiry
Officer/Block Education Officer, Desahi,
Deoria, wrote to the Secretary, Board of
Secondary Education, U.P. (Respondent
No. 2) on 08.02.2024, for verification of
the
petitioner's
High
School
and
Intermediate marksheets. Pursuant to this,
Respondent No. 2 submitted a report dated
15.04.2024, which reads as follows:-

"हाईस्कूल
परीक्षा
िषग
1983,
अनुिमांक-695179, परीक्षाथी का नाम एिं
वपता का नाम KM. NIRMALA D/o RAM
AWADHD VERMA जन्मततगथ-01.01.69,
श्रेणी-द्वितीय,
परीक्षाफल-231/500
ि
इडटरमीडिएट परीक्षा िषग-1985, अनुिमांक
359930, परीक्षाथी का नाम एिं वपता का नाम
MANZOOR
ANSARI
S/O
HAKIM
ANSARI श्रेणी-द्वितीय परीक्षाफल-245/500,
पररषदीय अभिलेिानुसार परीक्षागथगयों का
सत्यापन वििरण है।

नोट-हाईस्कूल
परीक्षा
िषग-1983,
अनुिमांक-695179 एिं इडटर परीक्षा िषग1985,
अनुिमांक-359930
का
पररषदीय
अभिलेिानुसार VIRENDRA KUMAR के
स्थान पर क्रकसी अन्य छात्र का वििरण अंक्रकत
है। उक्त छात्र द्िारा प्रस्तुत अंकपत्र/प्रमाण पत्र
कूटरगित है।"

17. Following the report submitted by
Respondent
No.
2,
the
Inquiry
Officer/Block Education Officer, Desahi,
Deoria, submitted the inquiry report dated
02.05.2024, which reads as follows:-

"उपरोक्तानुसार
िखणगत
पत्रों,
सत्यापन आख्याओं ि अपिारी कमगिारी के
स्पटटीकरण से यह साबबत हो रहा है क्रक श्री
िीरेन्र कुमार भमश्र, स०अ० (तनलण्म्बत),
कम्पोण्जट विद्यालय जरार मातनक, वि०शे०-
िलुअनी, जनपद-देिररया द्िारा तथ्यों का
िोपन कर षड्यन्त्र करते हुए फजी हाईस्कूल
एिं इडटरमीडिएट अंकपत्र / प्रमाण पत्र के
आिार पर बेभसक भशक्षा वििाि में नौकरी प्राप्त
क्रकये हैं, जो एक िम्िीर अपराि की श्रेणी में
है।"

18. Subsequently, a notice dated
22.05.2024, was served upon the petitioner,
affording him a last opportunity to submit
his reply within a period of seven days.
Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner
submitted his reply on 09.07.2024, wherein
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he mentioned different roll numbers for his
High School and Intermediate marksheets.
This endeavour on the part of the petitioner
appears to be a deliberate attempt to
obfuscate the issue. In light of the
documentary evidence on record, it is
manifestly
clear
that
the
petitioner's
appointment
was
procured
through
fraudulent means, and the respondents were
fully justified in arriving at this conclusion.

19. The law is well-settled on this
issue,
with
numerous
judicial
pronouncements
emphasizing
the
importance of integrity and honesty in
public
appointments.
Courts
have
consistently
held
that
fraudulent
appointments are void ab initio and must be
set aside, regardless of the consequences.

20. It is well settled that fraud vitiates
all
solemn
acts.
Petitioner
has
not
submitted any document which could
contradict the findings recorded by Inquiry
Officer as well as by disciplinary authority
that forged educational documents were
provided by petitioner at the time of his
appointment. At this stage, it would be
relevant to mention relevant paragraphs of
the judgments passed by Supreme Court in
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited and another vs. Anil Kanwariya7
and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs.
Rajendra D. Harmalkar8.

i)
Rajasthan
Rajya
Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra);

"14. The issue/question may be
considered from another angle, from the
employer's point of view. The question is
not about whether an employee was
involved in a dispute of trivial nature and
whether he has been subsequently acquitted
or not. The question is about the credibility
and/or trustworthiness of such an employee
who at the initial stage of the employment,
i.e.,
while
submitting
the
declaration/verification and/or applying for
a post made false declaration and/or not
disclosing and/or suppressing material fact
of having involved in a criminal case. If the
correct facts would have been disclosed,
the employer might not have appointed
him. Then the question is of TRUST.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the
employer feels that an employee who at the
initial stage itself has made a false
statement and/or not disclosed the material
facts and/or suppressed the material facts
and therefore he cannot be continued in
service because such an employee cannot
be relied upon even in future, the employer
cannot be forced to continue such an
employee. The choice/option whether to
continue or not to continue such an
employee always must be given to the
employer. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed and as observed hereinabove in
catena of decision such an employee
cannot claim the appointment and/or
continue to be in service as a matter of
right."

ii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (supra);

"22. In the present case, the
original writ petitioner was dismissed from
service by the Disciplinary Authority for
producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC.
Producing the false/fake certificate is a
grave misconduct. The question is one of a
TRUST. How can an employee who has
produced
a
fake
and
forged
marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial
stage of appointment be trusted by the
employer? Whether such a certificate was
material or not and/or had any bearing on
the employment or not is immaterial. The
question is not of having an intention or
mens rea. The question is producing the
fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our
8 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1079
view, the Disciplinary Authority was
justified in imposing the punishment of
dismissal from service."

21. If an appointment is found to be
based on forgery, the authority has the right
to recall the appointment. The individual
appointed under such circumstances cannot
claim any equity or rights based on their
continued service, as the appointment is
fundamentally flawed. The aforesaid has
been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Usha Singh vs. State of
U.P. and another9. Also the same has been
held by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the
case of Nageswar Sonkesri vs. State of
M.P. and another10.

22. In the case of Vijay Krishnarao
Kurundkar and another vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others11, the Apex Court
has consistently held that appointments
made on the basis of forged documents are
invalid and such appointments are void ab
initio and cannot be legitimized by any
subsequent actions.

23. In the case of Jainendra Singh vs.
State of U.P.12, Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the fact of appointment obtained
by fraud and held in para 29.1 to 29.10 as
under :-

"29.1
Fraudulently
obtained
orders of appointment could be legitimately
treated as voidable at the option of the
employer or could be recalled by the
employer and in such cases merely because
the respondent employee has continued in
service for a number of years, on the basis
of such fraudulently obtained employment,
cannot get any equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer.

29.2 Verification of the character
and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable to the post under the
State and on account of his antecedents the
appointing authority if find not desirable to
appoint a person to a disciplined force can
it be said to be unwarranted.

29.3 When appointment was
procured by a person on the basis of forged
documents,
it
would
amount
to
misrepresentation
and
fraud
on
the
employer and, therefore, it would create no
equity in his favour or any estoppel against
the employer while resorting to termination
without holding any inquiry.

29.4
A
candidate
having
suppressed material information and/or
giving false information cannot claim right
to continue in service and the employer,
having regard to the nature of employment
as well as other aspects, has the discretion
to terminate his services.

29.5 Purpose of calling for
information regarding involvement in any
criminal case or detention or conviction is
for the purpose of verification of the
character/antecedents
at
the
time
of
recruitment and suppression of such
material information will have clear
bearing on the character and antecedents
of the candidate in relation to his continuity
in service.

29.6 The person who suppressed
the material information and/or gives false
information cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuity in service.

29.7 The standard expected of a
person intended to serve in uniformed
service is quite distinct from other services
and, therefore, any deliberate statement or
omission regarding a vital information can
be seriously viewed and the ultimate
decision of the appointing authority cannot
be faulted.

29.8 An employee on probation
can be discharged from service or may be
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
refused employment on the ground of
suppression of material information or
making false statement relating to his
involvement
in
the
criminal
case,
conviction or detention, even if ultimately
he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch
as such a situation would make a person
undesirable or unsuitable for the post.

29.9
An
employee
in
the
uniformed service pre-supposes a higher
level of integrity as such a person is
expected to uphold the law and on the
contrary such a service born in deceit and
subterfuge cannot be tolerated.

29.10 The authorities entrusted
with the responsibility of appointing
Constables, are under duty to verify the
antecedents of a candidate to find out
whether he is suitable for the post of a
Constable and so long as the candidate has
not been acquitted in the criminal case, he
cannot be held to be suitable for
appointment to the post of Constable."

24. Thus, the law in case of
appointment obtained fraudulently is well
settled. Fraudulently obtained order of
appointment or approval can be recalled by
the authority concerned. In such cases merely
because the employee continued in service
for a number of years, on the basis of
fraudulently obtained orders, cannot create
any equity in his favour or any estoppel
against the employer/authority. When an
appointment or approval has been obtained
by a person on the basis of forged documents,
it would amount to misrepresentation and
fraud on the employer. It would create no
equity in his favour or any estoppel against
the employer to cancel such appointment or
approval since "Fraud and justice never dwell
together."

25. In view of the foregoing analysis
and observations, now, it is clear that when
any selection/recruitment or appointment to
some post was made illegally and it is
noticed on the complaint or at subsequent
stage
that
illegalities,
irregularities,
improprieties, procedural infirmities and
deficiencies and defects have occurred,
forgery or foul-play adopted or non
observance of Act, rules, norms were made
in process then the beneficiary candidate,
who has become output and product of
such defective and bad selection or
outcome of spoiled system process, shall
have no right or claim to the post or salary
or any consequential benefits in the service.

26. In the case of Union of India Vs.
Prohlad Guha etc.13, it has been clearly
held by the Apex Court that in case the
employment has been obtained based on
fraudulent
documents
on
concealing
material facts, the beneficiary of such fraud
cannot seek that proper procedure as
prescribed under Rule 1999 must be
followed.

27. In the present case charges levelled
against petitioner were found proved that he has
committed forgery and submitted forged
documents. Petitioner has failed to bring on
record any document which could contradict
the reasons given in inquiry report as well as in
impugned order. The issue of not providing
inquiry report of STF as well as charge sheet to
petitioner, though it has been denied by
respondents, does not exist as in the order
impugned itself it has been mentioned that
notices as well as proper opportunities were
provided to the petitioner, nonetheless, the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate the
authenticity of his educational documents.
Therefore, a person such as petitioner, who has
procured appointment as Teacher on basis of
forged educational documents, cannot be
entitled for any sympathy and he is required to
be dealt with strictly.
8 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1081

28. In this view of the matter, when
the
petitioner
had
produced
forged
documents for getting appointment and
nothing has been pointed out to controvert
the findings recorded in the impugned
order, the petitioner is not entitled to grant
any relief as prayed.

29. For all the reasons aforestated, I do
not find any error of law in the impugned
order
dated
20.11.2024
passed
by
respondent no.4. Therefore,
the
writ
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------