In a significant decision emphasizing the implications of fraud in public service, the Allahabad High Court has overturned a Single Judge’s order that reinstated a teacher whose appointment was allegedly obtained using forged documents. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, stressed that fraud vitiates all legal proceedings, holding that “no court can allow a person to retain a position obtained by fraud.”
Case Background
The case, registered as Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024, was brought before the Allahabad High Court by the appellants—District Basic Education Officer and another—challenging the Single Judge’s decision in Writ-A No. 17503 of 2017. The writ petition was initially filed by Smt. Punita Singh, an Assistant Teacher whose services were terminated on July 15, 2017, after her appointment was found to be based on falsified educational credentials.
According to the appellants, Singh’s employment, which began on August 7, 2010, was procured using fake documents. Following a complaint, a verification process was initiated with Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, which confirmed that Singh’s mark sheets were not genuine. Singh contested this action, arguing that the termination was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice, as there was no proper inquiry under the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 and the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal question was whether termination of employment due to fraudulent appointment requires a formal disciplinary inquiry. Singh’s counsel argued that termination without a detailed inquiry contravened the Rules of 1973 and 1999, which mandate such procedures before imposing major penalties like dismissal.
The appellants, represented by Shailendra Singh Rajawat, contended that once fraud is established in securing an appointment, the regular inquiry process does not apply. Citing precedents, they argued that fraud negates the need for compliance with the procedural safeguards meant for disciplinary actions, as the initial appointment itself becomes void.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The Division Bench found that Singh had indeed been given opportunities to prove the authenticity of her documents, but she failed to provide genuine evidence. Instead, she claimed she had applied for duplicate copies of the disputed documents. The Bench noted:
“Fraud unravels everything. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage obtained by fraud. Once it is proved, it vitiates judgment, contract, and all transactions whatsoever.”
The Court emphasized that a person obtaining a position through deceit cannot claim legal protections typically provided under service rules. The judges cited landmark cases, including R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court ruled that appointments obtained fraudulently do not warrant formal inquiry procedures for termination.
