Appointment Based On Forged Documents, Not Entitled To Any Sympathy: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Teacher's Appointment

The Allahabad High Court, on Tuesday (9^th January), upheld the cancellation of the appointment of a primary school teacher as it was based on forged documents.

The bench comprising of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that “a person such as petitioner, who has procured appointment as Teacher on basis of forged educational documents, cannot be entitled for any sympathy and he is required to be dealt with strictly.”

The Court held

“It is well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Petitioner has not submitted any document which could contradict the findings returned by Inquiry Officer as well as by disciplinary authority that forged educational documents were provided by petitioner at the time of his appointment.”

Accordingly, the Court held that not serving the inquiry report was merely an irregularity and not an illegality that caused the petitioner any prejudice.

Factual Background

Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School Harnahi Chakarwa Bahordas, District Deoria in 2005 and was later promoted to Headmaster in 2008. In 2015, based on a complaint that the petitioner's appointment was based on forged educational documents, an inquiry was initiated.

The office of District Basic Education Officer, Deoria verified the documents and did not find any ambiguity. Thereafter, documents were forwarded for further verification.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that even though no ambiguity was found in the documents, an investigation proceeded and an FIR was lodged against the petitioner in 2022. It was argued that though the chargesheet was supplied to him, the documents on the basis of which charges were framed were not supplied to him.

It was further argued that since the order canceling the appointment of the petitioner was passed without serving upon him a copy of the inquiry report, it was in violation of the principles of natural justice and was liable to be set aside.

Per contra, counsel for respondents contended that though several notices were issued to the petitioner, he never replied to the pointed queries. Accordingly, the inquiry proceeded, and based on the police report the charges were found proved.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that it was not a case of double jeopardy as the report of the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria declaring the documents as genuine was not final since the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria had forwarded the documents for further verification. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner could not claim double jeopardy.

The Court observed that the petitioner's reply was vague and did not contain any reply to the pointed queries made in the chargesheet and notices issued to him. However, the Court also observed that the procedure prescribed in Rule 9(4) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was not followed.

Rule 9(4) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides that in case any penalty specified in Rule 3 is sought to be imposed, then a copy of the inquiry report and findings of the Disciplinary Authority must be provided to the government servant.

“In aforesaid circumstances, this Court has to consider that in given case when petitioner has failed to submit any reply to charge sheet as well as reply to specific queries, as referred above, and also that writ petition is also silent on above referred queries, whether not providing copy of inquiry report would prejudice him when charges against him of making forged document were proved as well as that in this regard a First Information Report was also lodged against him wherein according to petitioner investigation is pending,” observed the Court.

The Court relied on Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (2022), wherein the Supreme Court observed that the question of trust comes in if the employee had gained employment based on forged documents. In such cases, the punishment of dismissal was upheld.

The Court observed that at any stage of proceedings including at the stage of the writ petition, the petitioner had not brought on record any document to contradict the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority that he had gained appointment based on forged documents. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to him due to the non-supply of the inquiry report.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Shiv Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 13121 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 13

Click Here To Read/Download Order