Rajeev Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 May, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Rajeev Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 May, 2026

1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the communication dated 30th November, 2022 issued by Respondent No. 2, Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited ("SECI"), whereby his appointment to the post of Junior Accountant (S-1 Grade) was withdrawn/cancelled and his services discontinued with immediate effect, while seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. Facts

2. SECI is a Central Public Sector Undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. By Recruitment Notification No. 01/2021, it invited applications, inter alia, for the post of Junior Accountant. One of the prescribed eligibility conditions for this post was three years' post-qualification, in-line experience in an organisation of repute.

W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 1 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23

3. The Petitioner, in order to satisfy the eligibility requirements for the post, claimed prior employment with M/s Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. as an Accountant from 01st February, 2016 to 31st March, 2019. The Petitioner thereafter qualified the written examination, was called for document verification, and was issued an offer of appointment dated 02nd February, 2022.

4. The offer of appointment expressly stipulated that if any information furnished in the application or attestation form was found false or incorrect, or if any material information had been wilfully suppressed, the service would be liable to be terminated without notice or compensation. The offer also placed the Petitioner on probation for one year and provided that during probation his services could be terminated if his overall performance, progress or conduct was not found satisfactory. The offer further mentions that till formal confirmation, he would continue as a probationer.

5. The Petitioner joined SECI on 11th February, 2022. Thereafter, SECI sought further documents, including certified salary slips and bank statements, for verification of the Petitioner's previous employment. Upon verification, SECI noticed multiple discrepancies in the experience-related documents furnished by the Petitioner. An internal verification report dated 24th March, 2022 records that no office of M/s Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. was found at the stated address; the premises appeared to be a residential-cum-commercial apartment, the alternate address traced was an under-construction building, and the landline number mentioned on the experience certificate was not in use.

6. SECI accordingly addressed an email dated 13th April, 2022 to the Petitioner stating that the experience certificate furnished by him could not W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 2 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 be verified and calling upon him to furnish further particulars regarding his previous employer. In response, the Petitioner, by emails dated 19th April, 2022 and 28th April, 2022, informed SECI that M/s Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. had already undergone insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal. The Petitioner further stated that he had worked at the NTPC Shaktinagar site in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, and requested SECI to verify the experience certificate through one Mr. Deepak Sinha, described as the site in-charge.

7. In the meantime, SECI, through an email dated 27th April, 2022, called upon the Petitioner to furnish a copy of his Provident Fund passbook after noticing that the salary slip for January 2019 reflected deduction towards PF. According to SECI, despite the lapse of several days, no response was received from the Petitioner in relation thereto. SECI thereafter addressed a detailed communication dated 11 th May, 2022 raising multiple discrepancies in the documents furnished by the Petitioner concerning his previous employment.

8. The material discrepancies noted by SECI must briefly be noticed. First, SECI observed that since M/s Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. had allegedly been under insolvency proceedings since 2018, the experience certificate and salary disbursement ought to have been through the Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP"), and called upon the Petitioner to explain why the experience certificate dated 09th February, 2022 had not been issued through the IRP. Secondly, one March 2019 salary slip submitted at the stage of application reflected payment mode as "NEFT/RTGS", whereas the salary slips later furnished at the time of joining for January to March 2019 reflected payment mode as "Cash/Voucher". Thirdly, while the salary slips W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 3 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 reflected deduction towards PF in the sum of INR 1,830/- and mentioned UAN No. 101665587456, SECI found that the said UAN corresponded to "Sinha Enterprises" and had been allotted only in 2021, whereas the salary slips in which it appeared pertained to 2019. Lastly, SECI also noticed inconsistency between the location reflected in the salary slips and that mentioned in the experience certificate.

9. The Petitioner thereafter sought time to obtain clarification from the previous employer and subsequently forwarded an email dated 05 th June, 2022 issued by the said Mr. Deepak Sinha.

10. In the said clarification, Mr. Deepak Sinha stated that the Petitioner was a contractual employee; that the mention of "NEFT/RTGS" in the earlier salary slip was a "typographical error" and salary had in fact been paid in cash/voucher; that the UAN number and PF deduction were wrongly reflected and described as an "inadvertent error" because the UAN belonged to a sub-contractor, namely Sinha Enterprises; and that fresh salary slips were accordingly being issued. He further stated that although the salary slips reflected the Head Office address, the Petitioner had in fact worked at the NTPC Shaktinagar site, since, according to the internal policy of the company, salary slips of all employees uniformly carried the Head Office address. Mr. Deepak Sinha also asserted that despite the insolvency proceedings, he was competent to issue the experience certificate and salary slips since operational and employment-related matters at the site remained under his control, while placing reliance upon an email dated 03 rd July, 2018 issued by the Interim Resolution Professional stating that site operations should continue without interruption.

11. SECI was not satisfied with the explanation and, by the impugned W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 4 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 communication dated 30th November, 2022, cancelled the Petitioner's appointment. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which declined to entertain the matter for want of jurisdiction, whereafter the present writ petition came to be instituted. Submissions

12. Ms. Aditi Anup, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the impugned action is arbitrary and unreasonable, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner duly participated in and qualified the recruitment process, was appointed against a regular vacancy, served SECI for about ten months with a clean service record, and that there is no allegation of any misconduct in the discharge of his duties during this period.

13. The Petitioner furnished all documents received from his previous employer bona fide, without any intention to mislead, and that any discrepancies in those documents are traceable to clerical or typographical mistakes at the employer's end. In fact, such discrepancies stood fully explained by the email dated 05th June, 2022 issued by the site in-charge of M/s Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and by the corrected salary slips subsequently issued. In these circumstances, SECI could not, after permitting the Petitioner to join and serve, abruptly terminate his services without conducting a proper inquiry, framing specific charges or affording him a real and effective opportunity of hearing.

14. Ms. Anup emphasises that, though couched in neutral language, the impugned order is in substance punitive, since it rests on allegations of falsification and misrepresentation, which carry a clear stigma and visit the Petitioner with serious civil consequences. Where termination is in reality W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 5 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 founded on allegations of misconduct, the employer cannot avoid the safeguards of a fair departmental inquiry merely by couching the action as simpliciter termination, even in the case of a probationer. In this regard, reliance is placed on Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India.1

15. Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Singh, counsel for Respondent No. 2, submits that the Petitioner secured appointment on the basis of false and unreliable eligibility documents. Clause 22 of the Recruitment Advertisement as well as Clause 3 of the Offer of Appointment expressly entitled SECI to terminate the Petitioner's services without notice if any information furnished by him was found to be false, incorrect or not in conformity with the prescribed eligibility criteria. The Petitioner was a probationer and his appointment was expressly made subject to verification of credentials.

16. The present case does not concern any act of misconduct during service, but goes to the very entry of the petitioner into service on the basis of unreliable and falsified eligibility documents. Despite, repeated opportunities, the Petitioner does not produce cogent and verifiable material to establish the genuineness of the claimed experience with M/s Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., does not furnish any PF passbook, and rests his case essentially on a clarification issued by a person whose authority itself remains unverified. In these circumstances, no violation of the principles of natural justice can be said to arise.

17. It is submitted that where an appointment is secured or continued on the basis of false, suppressed or otherwise unreliable material having a direct bearing on eligibility, particularly during the period of probation, the 1 (1984) 2 SCC 369.

W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 6 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 employer is entitled to discontinue the employee and such action does not warrant interference unless shown to be mala fide or manifestly arbitrary. In this regard, reliance is placed on Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.2 Points for determination

18. In the backdrop of the rival submissions, pleadings and material on record, the following questions arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the impugned communication dated 30th November, 2022 is liable to be treated as punitive or stigmatic in substance, thereby attracting a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry.

(ii) Whether SECI had before it objective material sufficient to conclude that the Petitioner's claim of prior experience and the documents furnished in support thereof were not trustworthy or not in conformity with the eligibility requirements.

(iii) Whether the action of Respondent No. 2 is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice or manifest arbitrariness.

(iv) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis

19. The evaluation of the Petitioner's grievance must necessarily be anchored in the nature of his appointment. Undisputedly, the Petitioner was inducted as a probationer, and his continuation in service remained strictly contingent upon the verification of his credentials. The terms and conditions of his employment are unambiguous. Clause 3 of the offer of appointment explicitly mandates that if any information furnished in the application or 2 2022 INSC 1024.

W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 7 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 attestation form is found to be false or incorrect, or if material information is wilfully suppressed, the service is liable to be terminated without notice or compensation. This caveat is further reinforced by Clause 22 of the recruitment notification, which reserves unto SECI the absolute right to reject a candidature at any stage, even after recruitment or joining, should the information provided prove false or fail to conform to the prescribed eligibility criteria.

20. The Petitioner's attack on the impugned order rests substantially on the assertion that it is, in substance, punitive, and therefore unsustainable in the absence of a regular departmental inquiry. Reliance on Anoop Jaiswal is placed to contend that the Court must look beyond the ostensibly innocuous form of a termination order and test whether allegations of misconduct in truth constitute its foundation. That principle is well-established and admits of no serious dispute. Equally well-settled, however, is the corollary that where the employer's action proceeds not on any charge of misconduct in the discharge of duties, but on the conclusion that the very induction into service stands vitiated because the material furnished at the threshold is false, misleading or otherwise unreliable, the scrutiny it attracts is of a different order.

21. The jurisprudence on discontinuance resting on false antecedents or defective eligibility information is well settled. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav,3 the Supreme Court held that where a probationer furnishes false information on matters going to character, antecedents and suitability, his services may be terminated during probation without holding a full-fledged inquiry, the test being the impact of the false W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 8 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 statement on his fitness for the post. In Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P. & Ors.,4 the Court clarified that this principle operates in the context of a probationer, whereas a confirmed employee stands on a different footing and ordinarily attracts additional procedural safeguards.

22. The decision in Satish Chandra Yadav assumes particular relevance. There, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that where a probationer's appointment is expressly made subject to verification of antecedents and it emerges that the information furnished is false, or suppressed, the employer is entitled to dispense with his services. What triggers the employer's right is not merely the nature of the underlying incident but the deliberate withholding or distortion of material facts, which strikes at the employee's credibility and overall suitability for public employment.

23. While it is true that the decisions cited above arise in the context of suppression of criminal cases or adverse antecedents, the underlying principle that emerges from those authorities, however, is applicable to the facts of the case. Public employment rests on candour, trust and the ability of the employer to verify material information bearing on eligibility, antecedents and suitability. That rationale applies with equal force where prior work experience is itself an eligibility condition and the documents produced to prove such experience are inconsistent or incapable of independent verification.

24. On the facts at hand, the discrepancies noticed by SECI are neither vague nor extraneous. To begin with, the physical verification undertaken by SECI bears noting: no office of M/s Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. was 3 (2003) 3 SCC 437.

(2010) 2 SCC 169.

W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 9 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 found at the address stated in the experience certificate; the premises appeared to be a residential-cum-commercial apartment; the alternative location traced was an under-construction building; and the landline number printed on the certificate was not functional. This, by itself, may not have been determinative, but it unquestionably furnished a legitimate basis for heightened scrutiny.

25. Secondly, it is a common ground that the company in question had been subjected to insolvency proceedings. SECI thus specifically queried why the experience certificate had not been issued through, or at least authenticated by, the IRP if the corporate debtor was under CIRP. The Petitioner never produced any certificate or direct verification emanating from the IRP. Instead, he relied on an email dated 03rd July, 2018 from the IRP indicating that site operations should continue, coupled with the assertion that Mr. Deepak Sinha, described as site in-charge, was competent to issue the relevant certificates and salary slips. That material may suggest operational continuity at site, but it does not, by itself, establish that Mr. Sinha had the authority, years later, to certify the Petitioner's experience for the purposes of recruitment in a public sector undertaking.

26. Thirdly, and more fundamentally, the salary records themselves contain irreconcilable inconsistencies on material particulars. The March 2019 salary slip furnished at the application stage reflects payment of salary by "NEFT/RTGS", carries UAN No. 101665587456, and shows deduction of INR 1,830/- towards PF. The salary slips later produced for January to March 2019, however, record payment by "Cash/Voucher", yet continue to show PF deductions. In the clarification dated 05th June, 2022, the narrative shifts significantly: the earlier indication of NEFT/RTGS is described as a W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 10 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 mere "typographical error"; the UAN is said to belong not to the Petitioner but to a sub-contractor, Sinha Enterprises; and, most strikingly, it is asserted that the Petitioner, being a contractual employee, had no UAN and no PF deduction at all. That explanation goes far beyond correction of a minor clerical error and substantially undermines the reliability of the very documents on which the Petitioner founded his claim of prior experience.

27. The explanation rather than resolving the inconsistency, effectively disowns material particulars contained in the original salary slips. If there was, in fact, neither any PF deduction nor any UAN relatable to the Petitioner, their presence in the earlier salary records cannot be treated as an inconsequential lapse. Equally, once it is admitted that the UAN belonged to another entity and was allotted only in 2021, SECI cannot be faulted for treating a 2019 salary slip carrying that UAN as inherently suspect.

28. Fourthly, the Petitioner does not furnish the PF passbook despite repeated requisitions. The rejoinder seeks to justify this omission on the footing that the Petitioner was a lower-level contractual employee and that no PF account ever existed. That very explanation, however, sits uneasily with the salary slips earlier pressed into service by the Petitioner, which on their face record PF deductions month after month.

29. Seen in this light, the impugned action cannot be characterised as one founded on misconduct in service, but concerns the reliability and authenticity of the documents furnished by the Petitioner to establish his eligibility for appointment. The discrepancies noted by SECI go directly to the Petitioner's claim of prior experience, which constituted an essential eligibility condition for the post in question.

30. Once the action is viewed in that perspective, the submission that the W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 11 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 impugned communication is punitive or stigmatic loses much of its force, and the Petitioner's reliance on Anoop Jaiswal becomes misplaced. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the order of discharge was, in substance, founded upon allegations of indiscipline during training and had merely been couched in innocuous language to avoid the safeguards of Article 311(2). The present case, as observed above, stands on an altogether different footing, where the issue pertains not to misconduct during service, but to the reliability of the material furnished to establish eligibility itself.

31. The plea founded on breach of natural justice does not take the matter any further. The record shows that SECI does not act precipitately. It first informs the Petitioner on 13th April, 2022 that the experience certificate cannot be verified; it then, by email dated 27th April, 2022, calls upon him to furnish his PF passbook; and, finally, under a detailed email dated 11th May, 2022, sets out six specific discrepancies and invites a cogent response within seven days. The Petitioner seeks time, writes to the site in-charge, procures a clarification and corrected slips, and forwards the same to SECI.

32. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was condemned unheard. What was not afforded to him was a formal departmental inquiry in the nature of a misconduct proceeding. Such a requirement, however, does not invariably arise where the employer is examining the reliability of eligibility material furnished by a probationer, particularly in light of contractual and recruitment conditions permitting discontinuance in the event of false or non-conforming information.

33. The Court is conscious of the Petitioner's consistent stand that he acted bona fide and merely furnished documents generated by his former employer. It is possible that some part of the confusion originated at the W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 12 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 source. However, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not exercised on sympathy or conjecture. The question is whether, on the material before it, SECI's conclusion can be said to be one that no reasonable authority could have reached. On the record as it stands, this Court is unable to so conclude.

34. It is also urged that, the Petitioner having served for about ten months with no complaint as to his work, equities now operate in his favour. The contention is untenable. Where, prior to confirmation, the employer finds that the eligibility-related information on the strength of which the appointment was obtained is doubtful or false, mere continuation in a probationary capacity, howsoever long, does not create an enforceable equity against the employer. Public employment cannot be perpetuated on the basis of estoppel when the appointing authority, on objective material, concludes that the very entry is untenable.

35. For the same reason, this Court is unable to accept the broad submission that SECI, having once permitted the Petitioner to join, is foreclosed from revisiting his eligibility. The appointment letter itself makes induction and confirmation subject to verification, and the recruitment terms clearly reserve a power to reject candidature even after joining if the information furnished is false or not in conformity with the eligibility criteria. To hold that SECI is bound by a provisional assumption of correctness made prior to proper scrutiny would be to render those stipulations largely otiose.

36. In the ultimate analysis, the Court is not concerned with whether, had it been in the position of the employer, it might have adopted a more indulgent course. The question is whether the impugned action is vitiated by manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or such procedural unfairness W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 13 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23 as would warrant intervention under Article 226. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is unable to hold that SECI's decision falls foul of these standards. Consequently, no case for reinstatement or grant of any consequential relief is made out.

37. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 5, 2026/nk W.P.(C) 1306/2023 Page 14 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 20:42:23

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders