Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

B.S. Chauhan, J.—The Petitioner appeared in different phases for the recruitment of Provincial Armed Constabulary, (hereinafter called as the P.A.C.) for the period 18.1.96 to 23.3.1996 and was declared successful and in pursuance of his selection, he has joined on 6.12.96 and reported for training, which was to be commenced from 10.12.96. However, the services of the Petitioner has been terminated by the Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 10.1.97, contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition.

The reason for terminating the services of the Petitioner has been given in the impugned order that while filling up the required forms during the process of selection, the Petitioner filed an affidavit on 29.3.96 wherein he has affirmed that in his personal knowledge no criminal case has ever been registered against him nor he has ever been challaned by the police in any case, but the Respondents while verifying the antecedent of the Petitioner came to know that the Petitioner had been involved in Crime Case No. 56/94, u/s 323/504/506, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1) and Section 10 of Atrocities on S. C. and S. T. Act and the case remained pending even subsequent to filing of that affidavit on 29.3.96 and the case was concluded vide order dated 4.5.96 of the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in sessions trial No. 223/95, contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition. As the Petitioner had given a false affidavit his services have been terminated.

Heard Shri M, D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned standing counsel on behalf of the Respondents.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that once the Petitioner had been selected and become the member of the armed force, his services were not liable to be terminated without giving him opportunity of hearing and without holding enquiry against him. In support of his case learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shridhar Vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and Others, and Shrawan Kumar Jha and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, , wherein the Apex Court had observed that appointments cannot be cancelled by the Government without affording prior opportunity of hearing. In both these cases the appointments had been cancelled on the ground that the appointments had been made by the authority which had no competence to make the said appointments.

Further reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9.5.89 passed in Writ Petition No. 18303 of 1988 Vinod Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and Ors. in which in identical facts and circumstances, this Court directed the authorities to wait till the conclusion of the criminal trial which was pending against the selectee and as the selectee in. that case has been acquitted by the criminal court, he was asked to produce the judgment of the trial court before the Respondents therein.

However, that case was different as it does not appear from the said judgment that the selectee therein has suppressed the material information at the time of selection or he has made a false representation. As the instant case is clear cut case of misrepresentation of fraud, I am of the considered opinion that none of the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is applicable in the instant case.

This Court while deciding the case of Atul Kumar Verma v. Chief Medical Officer, Farrukhabad and Anr. 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1782, had dealt with the issue where the appointee got the appointment by making misrepresentation and playing fraud upon the competent authority. While deciding that case this Court has placed reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court and at the cost of repetition the same are quoted below:

In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, 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 man 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 biased 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 subleties 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 the 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.

In U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. B. Sheetal Nandwani AIR 1991 SCC 908, the candidates got admission in M.B.B.S. courses by playing fraud and making misrepresentation. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of applicability of rules of natural justice and observed that under the circumstances in which such benefit had been taken by the candidates concerned do not Justify attraction for the application of rules of natural justice of being provided an opportunity of being heard.

It Is not necessarily relevant that the employment has been obtained by misrepresentation or by fraud only by the concerned candidates even if there had been a fraud in the selection and the duly selected candidates had not played any part or mischief and there has been no misrepresentation on their part, even then the selection vitiates because of the fraud played by the members of the selection committee or any body else.

In Krishan Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, the Apex Court held that when the entire selection was stinking "conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit", Individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything".

The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruits and pay dividends to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court cannot be a party to perpetuate the fraud.

In Union of India and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Suppl. 4 SCC 100, the Apex Court observed as under:

If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders It voidable at the option of the employer.

While deciding the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, wherein it had been observed that as fraud vitiate everything, the employment obtained by misrepresentation cannot be permitted to continue.

Thus, in view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.