Service Law- An Employee Cannot Seek Protection Against the Dispensation of Services If He Attained The Employment by Fraud: Punjab and Haryana High Court

An employee cannot seek protection against the dispensation of services if he has attained the employment by fraud, giving forged documents, and misleading the hiring committee, specifically when his employment was offered to him based on such forged documents and he had also been afforded ample opportunity to make his case, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. A bench of Justice Vikas Suri and Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, while dealing with a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Managing Committee of the appellant-college against the impugned order setting aside the termination of the current respondent, has observed that once it is established that the respondent was given employment based on false and forged documents and could have made to the merit list without such documents, and the respondent's case had been heard by the concerned Committee in line with principles of Natural Justice, then the respondent cannot claim protection from the dispensation of services. The facts of the case are as follows: the respondent had applied for the post of Assistant Professor for Chemistry and had mentioned in his application that neither did he take part in any curricular activities, nor had any NCC participation certificate. However, post the conduction of interviews, documents reveal that he was given the benefit of NCC certificate and of sports certificate (total 5 marks increase) raising his merit to 33 marks which ensured his candidature to feature in the merit list on and he was employed on probation for two years. He also gave an affidavit stating that the extra-curricular activities and other certificates produced before the Selection Committee were true and if any discrepancy was found therein later on, then his appointment was liable to be cancelled. In 2019, an FIR was filed against the respondent, one member of the managing committee, the Principal of the College as well one S.C. Sharma who was a previous employee of the appellant college, and allegations were made that although the respondent had marked nil for sports and NCC credentials, however, accused persons colluded with each other and prepared forged and fabricated certificates resulting in alteration of the record and damaging the candidature of other applicants. These allegations were based on RTI sought regarding both the documents and it was revealed in the RTI that neither the respondent was a cadet of any Unit, nor did the sports certificate claimed was issued to the respondent. When enquired by the Managing Committee, the respondent claimed that neither did he submit such certificates, nor did he claim any benefit therein. The Managing Committee then went through the records, attendance sheets, conducted verification of letters, and the affidavit and informed the governing body to take appropriate action. After filing a report pertaining to the same and giving a personal hearing to the respondent, the Managing committee dispensed with his services citing the rationale that his appointment was based on forged certifications. The respondent then filed an appeal before the Director-General, Higher Education, Haryana who took note of the fact that the respondent had not joined the video-conferencing and wasted his opportunity to present his case and thus, the Director-General, Higher Education, Haryana also approved the termination of his services. The respondent then filed a Civil writ petition before this Court citing that he was not allowed to present his case and the appellate authority (Director General) noted that the petitioner had appeared for personal hearing before the governing body and that his services were terminated following proper procedure and thus, his appeal was dismissed. The learned single judge then set aside the termination order stating that the "services of the respondent could not have been terminated even in case of a probationer, since the said order contained reasons that it was on account of serious misconduct on the part of the employee" Thus, this appeal came up by the Managing Committee. The bench primarily referred to Rule 8 of 2006 rules which provided that a person has been appointed by direct recruitment, he is to remain on probation for two years. Sub-rule 2(b)(i) stated that if a probationer's conduct is not satisfactory then a committee shall be formed and its report shall contain reasoning for such dispensation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. And the bench noted that the same had been complied with, in this scenario. Furthermore, the bench observed that the respondent's claim of not taking advantage of certificates is false since 5 additional marks were granted to him based on such certificates and that's why his candidature passed the merit list to be approved for the appointment. Further referring to the judgment of the division bench in Amarjeet Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,...

Service Law- An Employee Cannot Seek Protection Against the Dispensation of Services If He Attained The Employment by Fraud: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Rashmi Bagri

Tags