No Disciplinary Enquiry Needed To Dismiss Employee Who Obtained Reserved Category Appointment By Forged Caste Certificate: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an appointment to a reserved category post is obtained by producing a forged and fabricated caste certificate, the appointment is void ab initio and the employer need not conduct a full departmental disciplinary enquiry before terminating it.It held that since the appointment was itself an illegal order, issuing a show-cause notice before dismissal was sufficient, and no chargesheet or disciplinary proceedings were required.The bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran held,“It is settled law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and therefore, the appointment so sought by the petitioner on the basis of fraud becomes void ab initio and non-est. Any order which is de-hors the constitutional provision is an illegal order.”Respondent was appointed as a Bandi Rakshak in 1992 under the Scheduled Tribe reserved category, on the strength of a caste certificate certifying him as belonging to the 'Lodh' caste. He continued in the post until 2007. When the Director General, Jail Administration and Services, ordered physical verification of the documents of incumbents in the category, some were found to have sought changes of their division on forged orders.On verification, the District Magistrate, Lucknow reported that no such caste certificate had ever been issued to the respondent. An enquiry at his native place in Mainpuri found that no person of the 'Lodh' caste resided in his village and that he was 'Lodhi' by caste. The caste certificate was found to be a forged and fabricated document.Respondent was issued a show-cause notice. He sought time and did not categorically reply,. Despite a further notice fixing a personal hearing and a notice published in a daily newspaper, he did not appear. By order dated 28.11.2007, the Senior Superintendent, Mandal Karagar, Moradabad, dismissed him from service.The respondent challenged the dismissal by writ petition. A Single Judge quashed the termination and directed that he be given continuity in service with seniority and arrears of salary. The Single Judge held that proceedings taken up 15 to 16 years after the appointment were unwarranted. It was held that the alleged misconduct related to the stage of entering service and not to his conduct during service, so that action without a chargesheet and disciplinary proceedings, on a mere show-cause notice, was contrary to law. It was further held that 'Lodh' and 'Lodhi' were synonyms, the respondent belonged to the Scheduled Tribe and was entitled to reservation.The State filed an intra-court appeal. The sole issue framed by the Court was whether a full-fledged disciplinary enquiry was required before the dismissal. The Court noted that the outcome of the verification had never been challenged and had attained finality, and that the only relief sought in the writ petition was the quashing of the dismissal order.The bench rejected the respondent's argument before the Court that he had never submitted a caste certificate, observing that no benefit of reservation in public employment could be claimed without a caste certificate. It held that the forged certificate meant the appointment had been secured by fraud and was illegal.It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Re. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors., wherein it was held that a person who obtains a post by producing a false caste certificate cannot be said to hold a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. “In the case in hand the petitioner has not obtained a valid certificate by furnishing incorrect information but he has altogether furnished a forged and fabricated certificate which was never issued.”Since the appointment was itself void, the Court held that the show-cause procedure adopted before dismissal was proper and no departmental disciplinary enquiry was required.“There was no requirement to initiate any departmental disciplinary proceedings prior to passing of the order as the appointment order dated 08.08.1992 being an illegal order.”On the plea of delay, the Court held that a belated verification could not validate the fraud, as limitation does not run in cases of fraud and action can be taken once the fraud surfaces.The bench further held that the Single Judge, who was exercising jurisdiction over 'service matters', had exceeded that jurisdiction by going into the classification of caste, treating 'Lodh' and 'Lodhi' as synonyms, and thereby holding the respondent entitled to the benefit of reservation.Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment, dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the dismissal order. However, since the respondent had worked during the pendency of the appeal without any interim order, the Court directed that the salary and other emoluments already paid to him for that work would not be recovered.Case Title: State of U.P. and others v. Ranveer Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 449Click Here To...

No Disciplinary Enquiry Needed To Dismiss Employee Who Obtained Reserved Category Appointment By Forged Caste Certificate: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

No Disciplinary Enquiry Needed To Dismiss Employee Who Obtained Reserved Category Appointment By Forged Caste Certificate: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers