Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 August, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT C No. - 11846 of 2025 Virendra Kumar Mishra ..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. And 4 Others ..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh, Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C. Court No. - 52 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 the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 4&5 and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondent.
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 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 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 वर्ष1983, अनुक्रमांक-695179, परीक्षार्थी का नाम एवं पिता का नाम KM. NIRMALA D/o RAM AWADHD VERMA जन्मतिथि-01.01.69, श्रेणी-द्वितीय, परीक्षाफल-231/500 व इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा वर्ष-1985, अनुक्रमांक 359930, परीक्षार्थी का नाम एवं पिता का नाम MANZOOR ANSARI S/O HAKIM ANSARI श्रेणी-द्वितीय परीक्षाफल-245/500, परिषदीय अभिलेखानुसार परीक्षार्थियों का सत्यापन विवरण है।
नोट-हाईस्कूल परीक्षा वर्ष-1983, अनुक्रमांक-695179 एवं इण्टर परीक्षा वर्ष-1985, अनुक्रमांक-359930 का परिषदीय अभिलेखानुसार VIRENDRA KUMAR के स्थान पर किसी अन्य छात्र का विवरण अंकित है। उक्त छात्र द्वारा प्रस्तुत अंकपत्र/प्रमाण पत्र कूटरचित 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 वर्णित पत्रों, सत्यापन आख्याओं व अपचारी कर्मचारी के स्पष्टीकरण से यह साबित हो रहा है कि श्री वीरेन्द्र कुमार मिश्र, स०अ० (निलम्बित), कम्पोजिट विद्यालय जरार मानिक, वि०शे०-भलुअनी, जनपद-देवरिया द्वारा तथ्यों का गोपन कर षड्यन्त्र करते हुए फर्जी हाईस्कूल एवं इण्टरमीडिएट अंकपत्र / प्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में नौकरी प्राप्त किये हैं, जो एक गम्भीर अपराध 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 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 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 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.
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.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) August 19, 2025 Jitendra/-