In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed an earlier order by a single judge and upheld the termination of a government school teacher who secured employment using forged documents. The judgment, delivered on October 15, 2024, by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, reaffirms the principle that “fraud vitiates all proceedings,” emphasizing that employment obtained through fraudulent means cannot be protected by procedural requirements under service rules.
Background of the Case
The case, Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024, was filed by the District Basic Education Officer and another appellant against the respondent Smt. Punita Singh, a government school teacher, whose services were terminated by the order dated July 15, 2017. The termination was based on findings that Singh had secured her position as an Assistant Teacher on August 7, 2010, using forged educational certificates issued by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi.
Singh’s writ petition challenged this termination, and on April 16, 2024, a single judge had ruled in her favor, setting aside the termination order on the grounds that the termination amounted to a major penalty, which required a formal inquiry under the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, and the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two key legal questions:
1. Validity of Employment Based on Forged Documents: Whether employment secured through fraudulent means can be protected under service rules.
2. Necessity of Formal Inquiry for Termination: Whether a formal inquiry under the service rules is required when the employment itself is fraudulent.
Arguments and Observations
Appellants’ Arguments: The appellants, represented by counsel Shailendra Singh Rajawat, argued that the respondent had committed fraud by submitting forged educational certificates to secure her employment. They emphasized that upon discovering the fraud, due process was followed, including issuing a show-cause notice and seeking verification from the University. The University confirmed that the certificates were fraudulent, and the respondent’s explanation—claiming she was waiting for duplicate copies of the documents—was found baseless.
Respondent’s Defence: Represented by Pradeep Singh Somvanshi, the respondent argued that the termination violated the principles of natural justice, as no formal inquiry was conducted before imposing such a major penalty. The respondent claimed that her employment should not have been terminated without following the procedure under the service rules.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench, after considering the arguments and reviewing the facts, overturned the earlier decision of the single judge, concluding that the respondent had indeed secured her employment through fraudulent means. The court held that fraud vitiates all proceedings, citing several judgments, including R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Union of India v. Prohlad Guha.
The court noted that Singh was given ample opportunity to defend herself but failed to produce any credible evidence to prove the authenticity of her educational qualifications. It was observed that, despite being asked multiple times, Singh did not submit any valid documents to counter the findings of forgery.
The bench emphasized that “fraud unravels everything,” and since the very foundation of the respondent’s employment was fraudulent, she could not claim protection under the procedural safeguards provided by the service rules. Referring to previous cases, the court ruled that when employment is obtained through deceit, it is unnecessary to hold a full-fledged inquiry under the service rules. The court stated:
“A person who has obtained employment by fraud cannot seek protection under the rules meant for those who have rightfully earned their position.”
The court also clarified that Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which provides protections to government employees, does not apply in cases where employment was obtained fraudulently. The court’s conclusion was unambiguous:
“Fraud vitiates all proceedings. No person can retain an advantage obtained through fraudulent means.”
The court allowed the appeal, quashing the single judge’s order and dismissing the respondent’s writ petition. The termination of Smt. Punita Singh’s services was upheld, bringing closure to a case that had been pending since 2017.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024
– Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh
– Appellants: District Basic Education Officer and Another
– Respondent: Smt. Punita Singh and 3 others
– Counsel for Appellants: Shailendra Singh Rajawat
– Counsel for Respondent: Pradeep Singh Somvanshi
