Atul Kumar Verma vs Chief Medical Officer and Another

B.S. Chauhan, J.—The instant wit petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 3.6.96 by which the services of the Petitioner have been terminated which had been given to the Petitioner on compassionate ground. The services of the Petitioner have been terminated on the finding that the Petitioner had obtained the employment by misrepresentation and he did not possess the qualification of intermediate which was necessary for the Class III post.

The factual gamut of the case reveals that the Petitioner''s father died on 13.7.91 in-harness when he was working as a Class III employee with the Respondents. After the death of the father of the Petitioner, Petitioner''s elder brother was given employment on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 but under mysterious circumstances, he disappeared and on the same ground, the Petitioner, filed an application, on 7.5.1992 but he was not given employment. As the case of the: Petitioner was not considered, the Petitioner approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court and the Lucknow Bench issued direction on 21st September, 1993 to consider the case of the Petitioner on compassionate ground, though the direction issued by the High Court seems to be in flagrant violation of law and observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh 1994 (6) SCC 650, wherein it has been held that no person is entitled to claim the benefit under dying-in-harness rules more than once.

Thus, I am of the considered opinion that once the brother of the Petitioner had taken the benefit of the dying-in-harness rules and obtained the employment on compassionate ground, it was not open for the Petitioner to apply for the same. However, in pursuance of the order of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, the case of the Petitioner was considered and he was offered employment as Class III employee on 25th September, 1993. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the employer that there had been some misrepresentation, the Respondents removed the Petitioner vide order dated 5th September, 1995.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 35506 of 1995 which is still pending for final adjudication. However, this Court issued direction dated 7th December, 1995 not to give effect to the termination order dated 5.9.95. However, the Respondents were given liberty to proceed further and decide the case of the Petitioner after giving him opportunity of hearing. Thus, in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 7.12.95, the Respondents issued a charge-sheet on 29th January, 1996 wherein specific case of the employer had been that the Petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of intermediate and the marks-sheet filed by him was forged and fabricated document and thus the Petitioner was given an opportunity of defence. The Petitioner filed reply on 12.2.96 and the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the marks-sheet filed by the Petitioner was forged document and Petitioner had obtained the employment by misrepresentation and he proposed the punishment of removal of the Petitioner from service and thus the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice on the proposed punishment vide notice dated 11.4.96 to which the Petitioner replied on 12.4.96 and after considering the reply of the Petitioner, he was removed by impugned order dated 3.6.96. Hence, this petition

The basic issue involved in this case is whether the Petitioner possess the requisite qualification on the date he applied for the employment and whether the marks-sheet filed by him is a genuine or a forged document. The best evidence which the Petitioner should have produced in his defence was the certificate issued by the High School and Intermediate Board, if he had really passed the intermediate examination and as the Petitioner failed to produce the said certificate, inference is to be drawn against the Petitioner u/s 114 vide Illustration (h) of the Indian Evidence Act. So far as the question of genuinity of the marks-sheet is concerned there is a finding given by the enquiry officer after examining the Principal of the college from which the Petitioner alleged that the marks-sheet had been issued and member of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board, that this is a forged document.

While exercising the power in the writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in appeal against the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer.

In Smt. Ravinder Sharma and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that if a person does not possess the requisite qualification, his appointment is void, even though the person who sought such employment has never made any misrepresentation or played any kind of fraud.

In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors. 1994 (1) SC 1 the Supreme Court observed as under:

The Courts of law are meant for imparting of justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person who''s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court.

Chief Justice Adward Coke of England observed three centuries ago as under:

Fraud avoids all Judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal.

Quoted in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, (supra).

Similarly Lord Denning in Lazarus Estate Limited v. Beasley (1956) All ER 341 observed as under:

No judgment of a court, no order of ministers can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.

In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, , the Supreme Court has observed as under:

A Court of equity, when exercising its equitable Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to prevent the law from crafty evasions and subtelities leties invented to evade law.

Similarly, in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Prabhu, , the Supreme Court has observed as under:

It is responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.

It Is settled law that when a person approaches the court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objectives. There is no need to cite any authority for this but the reference may be made to the cases of The Ramjas Foundation and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, ; G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs. Government of Karnataka and another, and K.R. Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand and Others, .

Thus, in view of the above, this petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the special fact and circumstances of the case I direct the Respondent No. 1 to lodge an F.I.R. against the Petitioner for committing the fraud and for filing forged and fabricated documents.

A certified copy of this order be sent to the Respondent No. 1 for compliance.