Appointments Secured On Forged Documents Void Ab Initio, Can Be Cancelled Sans Disciplinary Proceedings: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan added that in such cases, before cancelling an appointment, disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution of India or under any disciplinary rules shall not arise.

With this, the single judge dismissed the writ petition of a primary school teacher challenging a government order rendering his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher null and void, as the same was found to be based on forged documents and name discrepancies.

"The forgery committed by the petitioner, for obtaining public employment on the basis of forged educational documents is the basic eligibility condition for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. Therefore, it vitiates the process of his appointment. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner is void ab initio and he cannot be said to be a government servant. Therefore, his appointment has been lawfully cancelled by the impugned order", the bench observed.

Briefly put, the Petitioner (Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in August 2010. In 2020, certain discrepancies were noticed in his appointment records, and thus, the District Basic Education Officer (BSA) issued notices to explain his documents.

Subsequently, in October 2022, the BSA declared his appointment null and void ab initio and directed the recovery of the salary paid to him.

Challenging this order, the petitioner approached HC and argued that he had submitted all academic documents, but they were not considered while passing the impugned order.

It was also contended that if the original documents were suspected to be forged, the concerned board or university should have conducted a thorough inquiry, which has not been done.

Regarding the discrepancies in his name (appearing differently in PAN, Aadhar, training, and caste certificates), it was submitted that they were caused by 'inadvertent errors' of issuing authorities and were not fraud.

The BSA, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioner obtained an appointment based on forged marksheets and certificates, and hence, the order impugned was valid.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the bench observed that the individuals who obtain appointments through fraudulent documents or actions are not entitled to any legal protection or benefits derived from such appointments.

On Fraudulent Appointment, the bench referred to the top court's judgment in Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi 2003, wherein it was held that fraud, as is well known, vitiates every solemn act; fraud and justice never dwell together.

The Court also emphasised that if an appointment is found to be based on forgery, the authority has the right to recall the appointment and that the individual appointed under such circumstances cannot claim any equity or rights based on their continued service, as the appointment is fundamentally flawed.

Further, referring to other judgments of the Top Court as well as the Allahabad HC, the Court noted thus:

"Fraudulently obtained order of appointment or approval can be recalled by the authority concerned. In such cases merely because the employee continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of fraudulently obtained orders, cannot create any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer/authority. When an appointment or approval has been obtained by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. It would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer to cancel such appointment or approval since Fraud and justice never dwell together".

Against this backdrop, the bench noted that in the instant case, the petitioner had used the documents of the complainant, who had not come to join at the place where the petitioner joined, as he was given an appointment somewhere else.

However, after learning that the petitioner was taking advantage of his educational certificates, the complainant made a complaint. The petitioner was called to bring the original certificates, which he could not; hence, the complaint was looked into.

The Bench noted that the records also clearly showed that the petitioner was not the person he claimed to be, and this was evident from his Pan Card, Aadhar Card, Special B.T.C. training 2008 Certificate, academic documents, residential and scheduled caste certificates, wherein his name has been mentioned differently.

"The petitioner has failed to establish the authenticity of his academic documents, and discrepancies in his name across vital records reveal a prima facie case of fraud. The petitioner's inability to produce genuine documents, coupled with the misuse of documents belonging to some other, i.e. Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, confirms that the appointment was obtained through fraudulent means", the court noted.

The Court further discarded the contention that a full departmental enquiry ought to have been held in the instant case. The Court said that once it is established that the very entry into service was vitiated by fraud, there is no 'termination' in the strict sense, but only a 'declaration' that no valid appointment ever existed.

"The requirement of an elaborate enquiry, as mandated for proven misconduct of a regular employee, has no application to such cases", the court noted.

Against this backdrop, underscoring that appointments obtained through fraudulent means are considered void ab initio, meaning they are null and void from the beginning, the bench categorically held that in such a case, any benefits obtained through fraudulent means, including salary, allowances, and other emoluments, must be returned to the employer or the State.

Thus, his plea was dismissed, and it was held that the impugned order lawfully cancelled his appointment.