Allahabad High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Manish Kumar & Others on 1 September, 2010
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Kashi Nath Pandey
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. 32 Special Appeal No. 1669 of 2006 Union of India and others Vs. No. 031518484 CT/GD Manish Kumar and others ====== Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon. Kashi Nath Pandey, J.
We have heard Sri Ashok Singh learned counsel for the respondent-appellants, Union of India. Sri I.P. Yadav appears for petitioner-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Sri Manish Kumar, Sri Raju Singh and Sri Hambir Singh the petitioner-respondents, in this Special Appeal were recruited in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 15.02.2003. While undergoing training, on verification of their educational and castes certificates, under Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1965, it was found that the High School Certificate of Sri Manish Kumar was forged, and the caste certificates produced by Sri Raju Singh and Sri Hambir Singh were also forged documents and were never issued by the respective Tehsildars. Their services were terminated by the Commandant 151th Battalion CRPF, Kratkhati, Assam on 28.2.2004 under the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 with effect from the date of expiry of one month, from the date of service of notice. The petitioners filed a writ petition No. 18832 of 2004, which was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy of review. In pursuance of the judgement of this court dated 14.5.2004, the review petitions filed by the petitioner-respondents were decided by the Inspector General of Police, NES, CRPF, Shillong (Head Office of the Department).
In the order dated 19.8.2004 rejecting the joint review petition, the Inspector of General Police, NES, CRPF, Shillong recorded that the petitioners hail from Agra, Uttar Pradesh, but they were enlisted in CRPF from Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh in deviation of domiciliary norms. The certificates produced by them were verified from respective issuing authority and were found to be fake. Producing fake certificates to secure appointment is itself fraud, and the petitioners were accountable to face the consequence of fraudulent practice. They deliberately suppressed the factual information despite the statutory warning. The Government servants indulging in such fraudulent practice cannot be retained in service. He also found that in the opinion of the appointing authority, on account of production of false certificates, they were not fit to be retained in Government service. Since they were probationers/temporary Government employees, Rule 5 (1) of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 were adopted for terminating their services. In para 3 of the review order, the Inspector General of Police observed that petitioners Sri Manish Kumar, Sri Raju Singh and Sri Hambir Singh had not brought out any other convincing or extenuating circumstances or facts for consideration of the reviewing authority. He did not interfere with the order of the appointing authority.
In the writ petition filed by the petitioners and in their rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of appellants-respondents, the petitioners did not specially plead or assert that their educational and caste certificates were not forged. They only insisted that the orders terminating their services are liable to be set aside on the ground that they were not afforded opportunity of hearing before terminating their services.
In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, it was specifically stated in para 7 : -
"7. That the contents of paragraph No.1 of the writ petition is not correct hence denied in reply it is stated that service of the petitioner were terminated due to reasons as indicated against each:
1. No. 031518484 CT/GD Due to submission/producing fake Manish Kumar certificates of Education/Caste/Domicile
2. No. 031518451 CT/GD Due to producing of fake caste and Raju Singh domicile certificate at the time of recruitment
3. No. 031518243 CT/GD Due to producing of fake caste and Hambir Singh domicile certificate at the time of recruitment In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners stated in para 7:- "7. That the contents of paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit are denied. The petitioners has not been given opportunity during enquiry proceedings in respect of their cast/education/domicile certificates and concern authorities illegally stated that at the time of recruitment the petitioners has submitted fake certificates."
We have carefully gone through the pleadings in the writ petition and the Special Appeal and do not find denial of allegation that the petitioners produced fake educational and caste certificates at the time of recruitment.
Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on 4.8.2006 on the ground that petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing. She has observed that:- "I am of the view that the petitioners were given appointment after due verification. At that time, their papers were found to be true and correct. It is, after a period of more than a year that their papers were found to be forged and fake. The order passed in review has for the time come-out with a charge against the petitioners. It is not simply a case of termination of service without assigning any reason. The petitioners are faced with very serious charges. Their entire life and carreer has been put to jeopardy. Faced with such a charge, the petitioners have no chance of employment anywhere at all. Wherever they go, they will be faced with this grave charge against them. I do not think that in view of the seriousness of the charge, which has been put against the petitioners, they should have been given opportunity of hearing in their defence. "
Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India the appellants, submits that Rule 14 provides for verification of character and antecedent as soon as appointments are made. The certificates produced by the recruitees and other information furnished in the prescribed form for 'verification roll' are sent for verification to the concerned District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police. They take their own time to give their reports. In the present case when the verification was made for the first time, it was revealed that the certificates produced by the petitioners were fake. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that at the time of appointment, the papers were found to be correct, is not true and correct, and is not based upon any documents filed on record. It was only when the District Magistrate informed the appellants, on the verification made for the first time under Rule 14, that the certificates were fake, the action was initiated against the petitioners. He submits that the petitioner-respondents never denied either in the review petition filed by the Inspector General Police or in the pleadings of the writ petition or in the counter affidavit filed in the special appeal that the certificates issued to the petitioners were valid and genuine. They only pleaded for opportunity of hearing which would be nothing but an empty formality.
Sri Ashok Singh further submits that the petitioners were seeking enlistment in the service in a clandestine manner suppressing information, and relying on fake certificates. The department did not have option but to terminate their services, after receiving the reports of the District Magistrate. An opportunity of hearing is not required to be given where a person does not deny the allegations of fraud against him. The directions to hold an enquiry, in such a case, would be futile.
This Court and the Supreme Court has in various judgments held that that the object of requiring information and the certification of the candidates is to ascertain and verify the qualifications, character and antecedents to judge his eligibility and suitability to continue in service . Where a candidate suppresses material information, he cannot claim a right to continue service.
In Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar [1997 SCC (L&S) 492] Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav [JT 2003 (2) SC 256; Sanjay Kumar Bajpai Vs. Union of India [ 1997 (1) SLR 803]; and this Court in Special Appeal No. 1075 of 2002 dated 1.10.2002; Special Appeal No. 1121 of 2002 between Rajesh Yadav Vs. Union of India decided on 11.10.2002; Krishna Chandra Chaurasia Vs. Union of India [2004 (2) ESC (Alld) 1022] and Nagendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (writ petition No. 24341 of 2001 decided on 12.8.2002) have consistently held that false information submitted in verification form, reflects upon the character of the person and if it is found to be false, he cant claim a right to continue in the office.
In the present case, apart from the fact that the information furnished by the petitioners, about their qualification and castes were found to be false, they have found to be played fraud with the appellants by submitting fake certificates. Thus they cannot claim right to continue in the service. The petitioners nowhere claimed that the certificates produced by them were not fake.
Fraud includes intention to deceive and the possible injury or gain by such deceit or secrecy. The production of false certificates of educational qualification to become eligible for selection and false caste certificates to claim reservation in appointment is misrepresentation of the fact, which such person knows. The petitioners were aware that they were not eligible for appointment. They have not denied that the certificates produced by them were fake. They have no rights acquired, based on such fraud, to be protected by the Court. They are, in fact, liable for prosecution and punishment under Indian Penal Code. Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent (Lat.) (3 Rep. 78 b) Fraud and deceit ought not to benefit anyone. Their enlistment on fake certificates was thus of no effect and once detected and not denied it created no right to be enforced.
The opportunity of hearing allowed by the learned Single Judge would therefore be undue sympathy to the persons, who have played fraud with the Central Reserve Police for enlistment.
The Special Appeal is allowed.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.8.2006 is set aside.
Dt. 1.9.10 nethra