In a significant ruling protecting public employees from arbitrary dismissal, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the termination order of Naresh Kumar Sinha, a clerk in the Bihar government, holding that the State failed to substantiate its allegations of fraud and violated due process. The judgment was delivered on April 2, 2025, by a bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar in Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8840 of 2022).
The Court directed Sinha’s reinstatement in service with 50% back wages from the date of his termination, along with all consequential benefits, while leaving it open for the State to take proper action, if necessary, by following due process.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the termination of Naresh Kumar Sinha, who was appointed as a clerk in the Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, through an appointment order dated June 24, 1989, issued following an advertisement published on June 22, 1981, in Aryabrata newspaper.
Sinha joined service on July 4, 1989, at S.M.T. High School, Vaishali. Although initially resisted by the headmaster, his joining was later accepted, and over the years, he was transferred to several other schools, including Devipad Choudhary Shaheed Asmarak (Millar) School and Urehan Girls Higher Secondary School, Bihta, Patna.
After more than 16 years of service, on September 19, 2005, the District Education Officer (DEO), Patna, issued a show cause notice alleging that his appointment was forged and that the order was not issued by a competent authority. Despite Sinha’s reply, the DEO passed a termination order on November 21, 2005. His departmental appeal was rejected on October 13, 2006.
Legal Proceedings Before the High Court
Sinha challenged his termination in the Patna High Court by filing a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 15852 of 2006), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on February 20, 2018. The Single Judge held that the appointment order was issued by an incompetent authority — the Deputy Director, Human Resources Development Department (DDHRD) — instead of the Directorate level.
Sinha then filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 379 of 2018), which was dismissed by the Division Bench on May 17, 2019, relying on departmental reports and affidavits claiming the appointment order was not traceable, and therefore presumed to be forged.
State’s Stand Before the Supreme Court
The State of Bihar argued that:
- The DDHRD was incompetent to make Class III appointments.
- Sinha’s appointment was fraudulent and invalid ab initio.
- In cases of fraud, the principles of natural justice, such as the right to a hearing, do not apply.
- The dispatch register number related to transfer orders, not appointment orders, making his documents invalid.
- Since the original appointment records were not traceable, the appointment could not be treated as valid.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
On the authenticity of the appointment, the Court found that the appointment order was signed by the Additional Director, Human Resource Development Department, and not by the DDHRD alone. Therefore, the core ground of the termination — that it was issued by an incompetent authority — was factually incorrect.
Regarding record production, despite repeated directions by the High Court (since 2011) and the Supreme Court (2024–25), the State failed to produce the original records, citing non-traceability. The Court held that mere non-traceability without an internal inquiry to fix accountability was insufficient. It emphasized that the government had a duty to identify how records went missing and who was responsible.
On the allegation of fraud, the Court referred to Advance Law Lexicon (3rd Ed., 2005), Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319], Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702], and Derry v. Peek [(1889) 14 AC 337], clarifying that fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved — not merely alleged.
The Court observed:
“It is trite to say that without any allegation of fraud, merely using the word fraud is not sufficient. A mere bald statement that the appointment was based on forged document or on fraud is not sufficient.”
The Court further noted that:
- There was no evidence that the selection process was bypassed.
- Sinha had continuously worked for 16 years and drawn regular salary, effectively acquiring permanent status.
- No departmental inquiry was held into the alleged forgery, nor were any officials held accountable for missing records.
On the principle of adverse inference, given repeated failures to produce the records, despite Supreme Court directions, the Court drew an adverse inference against the State.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that:
- The termination order was factually and legally untenable.
- The findings of the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) were based on extraneous considerations and contrary to the record.
- The allegation of fraud had no foundation and was unsubstantiated.
- Sinha’s termination, after long years of service, without following due process, was improper.
The Court ruled:
“The order of termination is based on a reasoning which is per se untenable on fact and record… In absence of holding any enquiry of such allegation, the order of termination is liable to be quashed.”
Final Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgments, and quashed the termination order. It directed:
- Reinstatement of Naresh Kumar Sinha in service.
- Payment of 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement.
- Grant of all consequential benefits.
- Liberty to the State to take any appropriate action in the future, strictly following due process.
