Lovepreet Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & Anr.

Judgment

#1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.2, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated, and the order dated 10.12.2018/08.01.2019 (Anneuxre P-9), passed by respondent No.1, whereby his appeal against termination order has been rejected.

#2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is stated to be a handicapped person, was appointed as a Store Boy on compassionate grounds, vide appointment letter dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure P-1), upon demise of his father (Sh. Sukhminder Singh), CWP-22398-2019 -2- who was working as a Sub Inspector, and unfortunately died on

01.10.2013. Since the said post required matriculation along with two years experience, the petitioner furnished an experience certificate dated 02.08.2017 issued by his former employer certifying that he had worked as an Assistant Helper from June, 2015 to July, 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that right from the date of his appointment, he has performed his duties to the best of his ability to the satisfaction of the Corporation, however, on verification of his experience certificate, it was found that the petitioner had only worked for two months with his former employer. Consequently, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) as to why his services should not be terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 30.05.2018 (Annexure P-6) (wrongly stated as 30.05.2015), wherein he had taken the following stand :- “..........In this regard, experience certificate was given by Bombay Store Company to me which is absolutely correct. The signatures and stamp can be matched with the Experience Certificate. At the time of verification, the Experience Certificate given by me should be treated as genuine.”

#3. Thereafter, the competent authority, vide order dated

31.05.2018 (Annexure P-7), while considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has submitted false certificate for taking appointment in the PRTC, and consequently, terminated the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director, PRTC, Patiala, which has been rejected by the said authority, vide order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure P-9). Aggrieved CWP-22398-2019 -3- against the order of termination dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-7) and rejection of his appeal, vide order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure P-9), the instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

#4. Short reply by way of an affidavit of Punamdeep Kaur, IAS, Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, has been filed, whereby it has been stated as under:-

“5. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds. The petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment alongwith matriculation certificate and experience certificate. The committee of the corporation after considering the application alongwith documents recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment as store keeper and accordingly the competent authority issued appointment letter. It is further submitted that the educational certificate was got verified from the concerned Board and was found to be in order. However, the experience certificate of the petitioner was not got verified at the time of joining. But later on vide letter No. 516 dated 09.05.2018 of the Ludhiana depot, the same was sent to the concerned firm for verification. In response to the same, the firm gave in writing that petitioner worked with them for only 2 months and he informed the firm that he has getting good job in some factory and has got written this experience certificate. The firm had further written that if petitioner has done anything wrong action can be initiated against him.

#6. That accordingly petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 14.05.2018. But the petitioner did not file any reply to show cause notice. However, the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing on 31.05.2018. The concerned employee failed to give any proof regarding genuineness of the certificate given by him upto 24.05.2018. Keeping in mind the principle of natural justice the proper opportunity of hearing and for filing the reply was duly afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to prove the genuineness of his certificate and only written submission was made that the certificate submitted by him for taking service issued by the Store Company was correct and genuine.

#7. That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has concealed the material fact from this Hon'ble Court with regard to the fact that the petitioner was on probation and action has been taken against him during the CWP-22398-2019 -4- probation period. The pleadings to that effect are totally missing in the writ petition and in view of the same the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

#8. That moreover, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and due to furnishing of fraudulent experience certificate and on verification of the same by Corporation the concession granted to him has been rightly withdrawn.

#9. That even otherwise it is settled law that fraud vitiates everything.

#10. That it is clear from the response of the firm from whom the petitioner obtained experience certificate that the petitioner had in fact worked for 2-3 months and as such the experience certificate is not genuine and accordingly the services of the petitioner were rightly dispensed with. It needs to be clarified here that the owner of the firm namely Bombay Motor Company gave in writing that the petitioner had in fact worked for 2-3 months. The Corporation vide letter dated 09.05.2018 enquired from the firm and the firm on the same letter gave in writing that petitioner worked for 2-3 months with them and not for 2 years.

#11. That even otherwise the petitioner was not a confirmed employee and as such no regular enquiry was required. The petitioner was offered proper opportunity of hearing and only thereafter the orders of termination were passed and as such the same are in accordance with law. It is further clarified that the Regulations clearly provides that obtaining employment by canceling any facts or fraud, which would have prevented his employment in the corporation had these been made known (before his appointment) to the authority appointing him is an act of mis-conduct and as such services of the petitioner has been rightly dispensed with.”

#5. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to make reference to the relevant provisions of the regulations governing the post of a Store Boy. The said post is governed by the regulations known as 'Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (Condition of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1981'. Regulation 9 deals with the period of probation and Regulation 10 deals with the confirmation. In Appendix A, the qualifications for the different posts have been mentioned. The same reads as under:- CWP-22398-2019 -5- “9. Probation :- “Ordinarily the period of probation shall be six months, but it may be extended by a period of three months at a time, at the discretion of the management, if the management considers it necessary in any case to further adjudge the work and merits of a workman. The maximum probation shall, however, in no case extend beyond one year”. Explanation :- In computing the period of Probation the days on i) which the workman was absent owing to authorise leave, sickness, Maternity leave, accident, lockout or a strike (which is not illegal) or temporary closure of the undertaking shall be included. ii) If a workman continues, in service after expiry of the period of probation or extended period of probation he shall be deemed to have been confirmed in his appointment on the date on which he completed the minimum period of probation. iii) If a permanent workman is employed as a probationer in a new post or a vacancy and his work during probation is not found satisfactory, he may at any time during the probationary period, be reverted to his substantive post. He shall not lose his lien on his permanent post on this account.

#2. The period of break in service due to sickness, accident, leave (duly authorised) lockout, strike (not being illegal strike), or involuntary temporary; closure of the service shall count towards the aforesaid period of probation, provided the service is otherwise continuous.

#3. Officiating service shall be reckoned as period spend on probation but no person holding a post in a Officiating capacity shall on completion of the period of probation be entitled to be confirmed until he is appointed against a permanent vacancy. If the work and conduct of any employee during his 4. period of probation is in the opinion of appointing authority, not satisfactory, the appointing authority may dispense with his service, if he has been recruited by direct appointment or reverted to his former post, if he has been recruited otherwise than by direct appointment or extend the period of probation provided the total probationary period shall not exceed one year.

#10. Confirmation :- Whenever during the period of probation or extended period of probation an employee is found fit for CWP-22398-2019 -6- confirmation, he may be confirmed in the post for which he is found fit by the appointing authority. In case an employee continues in service beyond the period probation or extended period of probation and no orders have been passed confirming him or terminating his post or reversion to his substantive post, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed automatically on the expiry of probation period or extended period probation as the case may be. Sr. No. Designation

#59. Store Boy Appendix-A Qualification & Experience by direct Recruitment Qualification & Experience by Promotion Matric, Experience for a minimum period of 2 years in the line -”

#6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while terminating the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-7), no inquiry has been held, and the action of the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner had already crossed the period of probation of six months as contemplated in the said Regulations and on completion of the period of probation, he became a regular employee and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to hold a regular departmental inquiry before dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

#7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that while the petitioner was still under probation, his certificates were found to be bogus and consequently, show cause notice dated

14.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply dated 30.05.2018 (Annexure P-6), and after considering the said reply, the services of the petitioner were terminated during the period of probation. He further submits that no order of CWP-22398-2019 -7- confirmation was ever passed in favour of the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur, dated 23.03.2026 in W.P.S. No.6609 of 2025 titled as 'Seetaram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others'.

#8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

#9. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Store Boy on compassionate grounds with effect from

13.11.2017. The essential qualifications prescribed for the said post were Matriculation coupled with a minimum of two years experience. In support thereof, the petitioner submitted experience certificate dated

02.08.2017 (Annexure P-3) along with the application, wherein it had been stated that the petitioner had worked with Bombay Motor Company, Ludhiana, as an Assistant Helper from June, 2015 to July, 2017 continuously. The said experience certificate was got verified by the respondent-Corporation, vide letter dated 09.05.2018. During the course of verification, the former employer of the petitioner certified that the petitioner had worked with them only for two months and had thereafter left the work. It has further been stated that the petitioner told them that he is getting a good job in a factory and if he can get good certificate in writing from them. The said letter dated 09.05.2018 reads as under:- “No.516/Admin To Date 9.5.2018 Bombay Motor Company, GT Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana – 3. Subject:- Regarding experience certificate of Sh. CWP-22398-2019 -8- Lovepreet Singh S/o Sh. Sukhminder Singh. Memo - Sh. Lovepreet Singh son of Sh. Sukhminder Singh is working as a Store Boy in PRTC Ludhiana Depot on compassionate basis. At the time of recruitment of this worker on dated 02.08.2017, you have issued a certificate of experience that he is working as an assistant helper in your company. So please make an effort to tell this depot that how long this worker has worked for you and whether you have deducted this worker's CP fund for this period and its work time muster roll may please be sent to this depot. General Manager P.R.T.C. Ludhiana. This employee had worked for us for two months and then he left the work. He told us that he is getting a good job in a factory, if he get good certificate in written from us. Rest we don't know anything. If he does something wrong, you can take action against him as you deems fit. For Bombay Motor Co. Proprietor M-9872300387”

#10. From a perusal of the above, it is clear that the petitioner never worked for two years with the Bombay Motor Company, Ludhiana, as reflected in the experience certificate dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-3). On verification, it has been certified by the former employer that the petitioner had only worked for a period of two months with them. Consequently, the experience certificate dated

02.08.2017 (Annexure P-3), relied upon by the petitioner to establish his eligibility for appointment cannot be accepted as genuine and the petitioner procured his appointment as a Store Boy on the basis of the said forged and fabricated experience certificate.

#11. It is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates everything. CWP-22398-2019 -9- A person who obtains appointment by projecting himself as eligible on the basis of a certificate which is subsequently found, upon verification, not to correctly reflect the requisite experience, cannot claim any legal right to continue in service. The petitioner's appointment, being founded upon an experience certificate which failed to withstand verification, lost its very basis. Thus, the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner having been preceded by complying with the principles of natural justice through issuance of show cause notice dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure P-4), and consideration of the petitioner's reply dated 30.05.2018 (Annexure P-6), does not warrant interference.

#12. The Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Seetaram Sahu's case (supra), while considering the similar question and relying upon various earlier judgments, has held as under:- “xxx

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner after his appointment on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II on probation, upon successfully completion of probation period, he was confirmed in service vide order dated 24.08.2011. Petitioner was a permanent employee. However, order of termination is passed without following due process of law i.e. initiating departmental enquiry against him by issuing charge memo framing charges against him. Termination of service of petitioner in absence of full-fledged departmental enquiry is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore order of termination be quashed. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision in case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. [SLP (C) No.8788- 8789 of 2023, decided on 16.04.2024] and decision of this Court in case of Rajesh Kumar Deshmukh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.3003 of 2016, decided on 26.11.2024], Mithai Lal Dhruw Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.3031 of 2016, decided on 21.03.2023), Niranjan Prasad Raisagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (WPS No.6658 of 2021 decided on 04.12.2025), Md. CWP-22398-2019 -10- Arshad Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.8967 of 2023, decided on 19.09.2025), Smt. Manju Bhagat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.1477 of 2025, decided on 27.02.2025), Deepak Dhara Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (WPS No.5328 of 2016, decided on 06.01.2025), Yaad Das Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.8212 of 2023, decided on 03.01.2025), Digmbar Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.4969 of 2015, decided on 22.08.2024).

#5. Perusal of pleadings made in writ petition would show that petitioner has not challenged/questioned the reason assigned in terminating services i.e. mark-sheet submitted by petitioner of B.Ed. is found to be forged document. In the writ petition, petitioner has only raised a ground of violation of principle of natural justice as no departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner who is a regular appointee.

#6. In the order impugned Annexure P-1 it is clearly mentioned that pursuant to notice dated 24.05.2024 petitioner appeared before the authority on 27.05.2024. In the impugned order, it is also mentioned that before the authority petitioner stated that he obtained employment based on B.Ed. certificate produced by him at the time of appointment; he is having no other mark-sheet of B.Ed. From the contents of order it is appearing that petitioner was given notice based upon which he appeared, submitted reply and he was also given personal hearing and therefore submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that order Annexure P-1 was passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Along with reply, respondents have submitted letter issued by Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur dated 21.06.2023 in which it is clearly mentioned that particulars of student (petitioner) mentioned in the mark-sheet is not in accordance with the particulars of student available in record (tabulation and chart) of University. It is further mentioned in the letter of verification, that enclosed mark-sheet is not issued by the University. Perusal of letter would show that it is in reference to mark-sheet of B.Ed. in name of petitioner Seetaram Sahu also along with two others.

#11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narsimha Reddy & Ors (2010) 8 SCC 383, considering consequence of fraud played by a party, has held thus: “28. It is settled proposition of law that where an CWP-22398-2019 -11- temporal." applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts (Vide S.P. ecclesiastical Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay 1956 All. E.R. 349), the Court observed without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything." 29 . In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Anr. AIR 1994 SC 2151; and State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481. this Court observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub- letties invented to evade law."

#30. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Brothers. AIR 1992 SC 1555, it has been held as under:- “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn in any civilised system of proceedings jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct."

#31. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1165, this Court observed that "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.

#32. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud. (See District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655; Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 100; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. Coal Tar Refining Company AIR CWP-22398-2019 -12- 2007 SC 2798; and Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751).

#33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (Vide Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572; Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao AIR 2005 SC 3110; K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481; and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170).”

#12. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with case of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170 while considering the case of a person who obtained appointment on the basis of false caste certificate observed that fraud vitiates everything and if a person continued to work on the post for over 20 years then also he cannot claim any equity or benefit on that basis. Relevant paragraph of aforementioned decision is extracted below: “14. Similarly, the plea regarding rendering of services for a long period has been considered and rejected in a series of decisions of this Court and we deem it unnecessary to launch an exhaustive dissertation on principles in this context. It would suffice to state that except in the a few decisions, where was not cancelled admission/appointment because of peculiar factual matrix obtaining therein, the consensus of judicial opinion is that equity, sympathy or generosity has no place where the original appointment rests on a false caste certificate. A person who enters the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtains appointment to the post meant for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, as the case may be, deprives a genuine candidate falling in either of the said categories, of appointment to that post, and does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. He who comes to the Court with a claim based on falsity and deception cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. CWP-22398-2019 -13-

#15. An act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due, tantamounts to fraud. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. (See R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala ((2004) 2 SCC 105 2004 SCC (L&S) 350) Bank of India ((2005) 7 SCC 690: 2005 SCC (L&S) 1011), BHEL ((2007) 5 SCC 336: (2007) Derry v. Peek [(1889) 14 AC 337: (1886-90) (L&S) 1521 All ER Rep 1 (HL)), Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education [(2003) 8 SCC 311] and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 7 SCC 605]) .

#16. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319] this Court had observed that fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine.

#17. Recently, in State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar [(2007) 1 SCC 80 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 5] dealing with a similar situation, this Court has observed thus: (SCC p. 89, para 23) "23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter."

#18. Having considered the matter in the light of the aforestated legal position, in our judgment, the decision of the High Court is untenable. As noted supra, the employee having accepted the finding of the Scrutiny Committee, holding that the caste certificate furnished by the employee was false, the CWP-22398-2019 -14- very foundation of her appointment vanished and her appointment was rendered illegal. Her conduct renders her unfit to be continued in service and must necessarily entail termination of her service. Under these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for her claim in respect of the post merely on the ground that she had worked on the post for over twenty years. The post was meant for a reserved candidate but she usurped the same by misrepresentation and deception. In our opinion, the fact that caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after ten years of her joining the service and a long time was taken by the Scrutiny Committee to verify the same is of no consequence inasmuch as delay on both the counts does not validate the caste certificate and the consequent illegal appointment."

#13. A person who had obtained job by playing fraud upon employer by placing on record forged document cannot be held to be a person holding civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of Constitution of India and therefore while dismissal of a person appointed by illegal means like playing fraud, as the case in hand, in such a situation Article 311 of Constitution will not be attracted. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 105 has observed thus: “15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and CWP-22398-2019 -15- upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.”

#14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Ex. CT. Vinod Kumar [SLP (C) No.24705 of 2023, decided on 12th November 2025] was dealing with the issue of obtaining appointment by respondent therein on the post of Constable in Delhi Police based on forged and fabricated degree/certificate, has observed thus: “8. Having considered the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by the CAT as well as by the High Court are unsustainable. The fact that once on the basis of a forged degree/certificate, a person gets appointment in the uniformed service of the country, that being the police, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, the act of the respondent is uncondonable. The further fact which is admitted is that there is absolutely, no rebuttal by the respondent that the certificate/degree presented by him before the appellants at the time of his appointment and on the basis of which, he was appointed as a Constable, is genuine. Having perused the original records and the letter from the issuing authority which categorically stating that the degree/certificate in question is forged and fabricated leaves no doubt that such fact cannot be controverted. Thus, no holding of a departmental inquiry in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case may not be a factor to vitiate the final order of dismissal from service passed against the respondent. Thus, on this short point, the appeal is allowed and the order of the CAT as affirmed by the High Court stands set aside. The punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent by the concerned appellants stand restored. No order as to cost.” CWP-22398-2019 -16-

#15. Reverting back to facts of case, petitioner who was initially appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-II and after his absorption he was working on the post of Teacher, has been found to have obtained initial appointment of Shikshakarmi Grade-II by submitting forged marksheet of B.Ed.. Certificate submitted by petitioner was got verified from the University which is stated to have been issued the said mark sheet. The University after verification of mark -sheet placed before it with its own original record have mentioned that particulars of students mentioned in mark- sheet and available in record of University is not matching, mark-sheet is not issued by the University. Thereafter, petitioner was issued notice, given opportunity of hearing . He appeared in person, submitted his reply and also made oral submission before the authority stating that he is having no other mark-sheet. The employment obtained is by playing fraud, and therefore, in the facts of case it cannot be said that order terminating his services is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing.

#26. In the facts of case and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, I am of the considered view that the order of termination of service will not be vitiate only because departmental enquiry was not conducted. It is not the case made out by the petitioner that non-holding departmental enquiry following rules has in any manner caused prejudice to him, and hence, I do not find any error in decision taken by respondent No.2 of terminating services of petitioner on the ground that petitioner has obtained employment based on forged document.

#27. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.”

#13. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the fact that once the experience certificate furnished by the petitioner was found to be forged and fabricated, the action of the respondents was justified in terminating his services. Thus, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

13.07.2026 Vinay (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No