Allahabad High Court
Javed Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru Secry. And 5 Others on 29 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 06.04.2026 Delivered on 29.04.2026 A.F.R. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1632 of 2013 Javed Khan ..Appellant(s) Versus State of U.P. Thru Secry. and 5 others ..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Siddharth Khare, Parashar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur (S.C.) Along With: 1. Special Appeal No.1634 of 2013 (Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 others) 2. Special Appeal No.388 of 2014 (Mustaq Ullaha v. State of U.P. and 2 others) Chief Justices Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
(Per : Kshitij Shailendra, J.)
1. Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in all the appeals.
2. Whereas Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013 arises out of order dated 03.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ A No.54819 of 2013 (Javed Khan v. State of U.P. and 5 others), Special Appeal No.1634 of 2013 raises challenge to an identical order passed in Writ A No. 54821 of 2013 (Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 others) and Special Appeal No.388 of 2014 arises out of order dated 25.02.2014 passed in Writ A No.3689 of 2014 (Mustaq Ullaha v. State of U.P. and others).
3. Since controversy involved in all these appeals is identical, they are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013 is being treated as the leading one, however, slightly distinctive features of the remaining two special appeals shall be taken note of by us.
4. By the order dated 03.10.2013, learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ A No. 54819 of 2013 upholding the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner Excise, Agra, whereby the appellants representation against termination of his services had been rejected on the ground that the documents submitted by him pertaining to his educational qualifications had been found forged and fictitious in the inquiry conducted by the respondents.
5. Brief facts are that the appellant, after undergoing the process of selection, was appointed as Excise Constable by appointment order dated 14.10.2010 and he joined his duties. On 30/31.05.2013, the Deputy Commissioner Excise, Agra terminated his services against which he preferred a representation before the Deputy Commissioner Excise, Agra Region, Agra and also filed Writ Petition No.36360 of 2013 (Javed Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 others). The Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 09.07.2013 with liberty to the appellant to approach the competent authority with supportive documents with a further direction to the authority to take a reasoned decision.
6. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the appellant preferred another representation dated 22.07.2013 before the authority annexing therewith 87 documents. All the representations were rejected by order dated 16.09.2013, against which the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal was filed and dismissed.
7. The authority has, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant and after considering the explanation submitted by him and based upon the documents, found the certificate of Adhikari Pariksha obtained by the petitioner in the year 2008 from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura (in short the University) to be forged, fabricated and invalid. It was further observed that the Adhikari Pariksha allegedly conducted by the said University was not equivalent to High School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education and, consequently, termination of appellant was not interfered with.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions that the order dated 16.09.2013 was based upon the documents, copies whereof were not served upon him and, therefore, the order cannot be sustained. On merits, it is contended that the appellant had produced marksheet and certificate of Adhikari Pariksha (High School)-2008 issued by the University. Learned counsel also referred the record of marks obtained by various students including the appellant and submission has been made that once there was no dispute regarding validity of Adhikari Pariksha (High School) conducted by the said University up to the year 2008, but it was declared invalid only after 2008, as held by this Court in Akanksha Gautam v. State of U.P. and others : 2012 (6) ADJ 107, declaring the appellants marksheet and certificate, which pertained to year 2008, as invalid, was per se illegal.
9. It is further submitted that the view taken by the authority while rejecting the representation that the Adhikari Pariksha allegedly conducted by the said University was not equivalent to High School Examination conducted by the U.P. Board of Secondary Education, is in teeth of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Dhanpal and others v. State of U.P. and others : 2013 (8) ADJ 723 (FB) and, for this reason also, the order impugned in the writ petition was liable to be set aside. Reliance has also been placed upon judgment of this Court in Riazul Hasan v. State of U.P. and others : 2024 (6) ALJ 542.
10. It is lastly submitted that once the appellant was duly appointed on the post of Excise Constable, termination of his services being stigmatic, could not be resorted to without holding a full fledged departmental inquiry.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has made submissions that it is not a case where appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing, rather the order dated 16.09.2013 itself indicates that not only his explanation was considered but also he was personally heard and the order was passed based upon inquiry conducted by the department, wherein it stood reflected that no academic activities were held in the Institution wherefrom the appellant had obtained certificate, for the period w.e.f. 2008 onwards nor any examinations had been conducted during the said period. Further submission has been made that during inquiry, no record of even recognition allegedly granted to B.L. Vidya Mandir, Devnagar, Jheel ka Purva, District-Banda on 16.04.2005 had been found and, therefore, conclusion drawn by the authority that documents produced by the appellant were forged and fabricated, cannot be faulted.
12. It is further submitted that fraud vitiates everything and once it has been found that the appellant had obtained appointment based upon forged and fabricated documents, no departmental inquiry was required. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Honble Supreme Court in R. Vishwantha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others : (2004) 2 SCC 105.
13. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.
14. The order dated 16.09.2013, impugned in the writ petition was passed in furtherance of the order passed by this Court in Writ A No.36360 of 2013, wherein this Court had directed the authority to take a reasoned decision on appellant approaching the authority. The order dated 16.09.2013 clearly indicates that the appellant was granted opportunity to offer his explanation and for personal hearing, 27.06.2013 was fixed, on which date the appellant filed various documents.
15. The authority has observed that before the documents presented by the appellant could be verified, he preferred writ petition before the High Court and during the course of verification of the marksheet of the appellant pertaining to the examinations of 2008, it stood revealed that all the evidences produced by the appellant had not been issued by or received from the University. The order further indicates that no Registrar was appointed in the Institution during the relevant period of time, however, the letter pad and even seal of Registrar had been utilized for the purposes of procuring documents.
16. It has further been recorded that the officer had personally contacted the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P., 5- Meerabai Road, Lucknow and, on inquiry, it was found that no head of the said Sabha was appointed. In relation to the same, letter dated 16.04.2009 issued by Justice S.C. Verma, retired Judge of this Court, who was acting as receiver in the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, was relied on, wherein it was indicated that on account of managerial dispute in relation to the Society, no academic activities had been conducted in the Institution or in any related Colleges and no examinations had been held.
17. The order further indicates that a document of recognition to the B.L. Vidya Mandir, Dev Nagar, Jheel ka Purva, District Banda, allegedly dated 16.04.2005 had been produced, however, on query, the Vice Chancellor of the University had informed that the documents did not pertain to the Institution nor was there any evidence to demonstrate that the same were issued from the Institution and, consequently, the documents produced were found to be forged.
18. After recording various findings regarding production of forged and fabricated documents by the appellant, the authority has concluded that the appellant had procured appointment on the post of Excise Constable based upon forged and fabricated documents and, further, Adhikari Pariksha allegedly conducted by the said University was not equivalent to High School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education.
19. As far as the documents referred to by learned counsel for the appellant to demonstrate as if the marksheet and certificate of Adhikari Pariksha held in 2008 were issued to the appellant and that the record of the University reflects his participation in the examinations held, along with other candidates, we could have elaborated the implication of the contents of those documents, however, once we are satisfied that the documents have already been found as forged and fabricated pursuant to extensive inquiry held by the authorities which we are not inclined to discard merely on the plea that copies of the documents relied upon were not served upon the appellant, we need not delve into the contents of the certificates or other documents.
20. The relied upon documents form part of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the Court deems it appropriate to refer to one of such documents, being letter dated 16.04.2009 issued by (Retired) Justice S.C. Verma, indicating issuance of fabricated certificate. The said letter reads as under:-
21. The Honble Supreme Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. : (2012) 8 SCC 748 held that 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 employee has continued in service for a number of years on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, he cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
22. The Honble Supreme Court, in the case of R. Vishwantha Pillai (supra), has laid down that where an appointment in service had been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such appointment is no appointment in law and in such a situation, Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not attracted. The Honble Supreme Court reiterated the view taken by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in Ishwar Dayal Sah v. State of Bihar : 1987 Lab. I.C. 390 and observed that in that case, the employee had obtained appointment by producing a caste certificate indicating that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community which, later on, was found to be false and the appointment was cancelled. It was contended by the employee before the Patna High Court that the cancellation of appointment amounted to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and, therefore, void and that he could not be terminated from service without holding departmental inquiry as provided under the Rules. Dealing with the above contention, the High Court had held that if the very appointment to the civil posts is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 of the Constitution can possibly flow and if the very entry or the crossing of threshold into the area of the civil service of the State or the Union is put in issue and door is barred against him, the cloak of protection under Article 311 is not attracted.
23. On similar lines, the Honble Supreme Court, in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486, has held that the production of a fake document in a selection process is sufficient to invoke action, notwithstanding the intention of the applicant. Similarly, in Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran : AIR 1996 SC 686, it has been held that when an appointment is procured on the basis of bogus and forged causal labourer service card, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. Therefore, it would create no equity in favour of the workman or any estoppel against the employer and for such misconduct, termination would be justified without any domestic inquiry.
24. It is well settled that fraud vitiates even the most solemn act and fraud and justice never dwell together. Reference, in this regard, can be made to judgments of Honble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others : (2003) 8 SCC 319, The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao : JT 2005 (6) SC 391, A.V. Papayya Sastry & others v. Government of A.P. & Ors. : JT 2007 (4) SC 186 and Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & others : JT 2008 (3) SC 452.
25. As far as arguments based upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dhanpal (supra) qua equivalence of Adhikari Pariksha with High School examination conducted by the U.P. Board of Secondary Education, we need not go into the said aspect of the matter as we are satisfied that once the appellant had secured appointment based upon forged and fabricated certificates; other aspects of the matter including alleged equivalence of the two qualifications and examinations, become irrelevant.
26. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
27. The appeal has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Special Appeal No.1634 of 2013
28. This special appeal is directed against order dated 03.10.2013 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ A No. 54821 of 2013 (Nazeeb Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 others).
29. The facts of the present case are identical to the one involved in Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013 as also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that termination of services of the appellant on the ground that he had obtained appointment based upon forged and fabricated documents, was in accordance with law and the learned Single Judge has not erred in dismissing the writ petition.
30. For the reasons stated in the order deciding Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013, the present appeal also stands dismissed.
Special Appeal No.388 of 201431. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2014 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ A No.3689 of 2014 (Mustaq Ullah v. State of U.P. and 2 others).
32. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2013 whereby the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Mirzapur, Region Mirzapur had terminated services of the appellant on identical grounds of forged certificates and marksheets having been utilized for the purposes of obtaining appointment on the post of Excise Constable.
33. Present appeal was filed subsequent to filing of Special Appeals No.1632 of 2013 and 1634 of 2013 and reliance was placed on interim orders dated 30.10.2013 passed therein. Apparently, the cause agitated in the present appeal is identical to the one involved in two other special appeals and once no distinctive features are apparent on the face of record as far as obtaining appointment based upon the documents issued from the University etc., as already discussed in our order passed in Special Appeal No.1632 of 2013, we are inclined to take same view in the present appeal also.
34. We may, however, mention that though in other two appeals, the writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge by one page order, the order impugned in the present appeal is quite detailed one wherein the learned Single Judge, after discussing the documents on record, has recorded findings regarding production of forged certificates and other documents and, after referring to various judgments of Honble Supreme Court on the proposition that fraud and justice never dwell together and that in case the appointment has been obtained based upon forged and fabricated documents, services can be terminated without holding inquiry, we find absolutely no error, either of fact or law, in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
35. Consequently, the present appeal also fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) April 29, 2026 Jyotsana