Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court upheld the termination of a government employee who had obtained his job by producing a false Scheduled Caste certificate. The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal, holding that “appointment secured by a person on the basis of a false caste certificate is void ab initio” and does not entitle the person to claim any right or benefit from such appointment. The Court further stated that “if an incumbent is not qualified or eligible, he cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution.”
Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant under the Scheduled Caste quota in 1983. Upon a complaint received by the District Magistrate, an enquiry was conducted which revealed that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was false. Accordingly, in 1990, the petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground that he had fraudulently obtained employment by misrepresenting his caste status.
The petitioner challenged the termination, first through an appeal which was dismissed, and later through a writ petition, claiming that he was not given an opportunity to be heard and that the termination was illegal and arbitrary.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner’s termination from service on the ground of submission of a false caste certificate was legally sustainable.
- Whether such termination without holding a formal departmental enquiry violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the length of service and alleged bonafides of the petitioner could offer any equitable relief.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the termination order was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was given. It was argued that the petitioner had worked for several years and had not forged the certificate knowingly, and hence, the benefit of the doubt should be given. The petitioner also relied on the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, which mandates that no government servant can be dismissed without a formal inquiry.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the petitioner’s appointment itself was void from the beginning, having been secured through a forged Scheduled Caste certificate. Since the very basis of employment was non-existent, no procedural safeguards under Article 311 would apply. It was submitted that fraud vitiates everything, and no rights could accrue to the petitioner on the basis of such misrepresentation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the legal position regarding appointments secured through fraudulent means and reiterated the settled position of law that a person who secures employment through fraud or misrepresentation cannot claim any equity. It was observed that in such cases, even principles of natural justice do not require a full-fledged enquiry as the appointment itself is void.
The Court clarified that Article 311 applies only when there is a valid and legal appointment in the first place. In the instant case, since the appointment was based on a false caste certificate, the very foundation of the service was illegal, and hence, Article 311(2) would not be attracted.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to the following judgments:
- Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to deal with fraudulent caste certificate claims. It held that such certificates, once found to be false, would render the appointment void.
- Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) 4 SCC 100: The Court held that appointment obtained by fraud is void ab initio, and protection under Article 311 is not available.
- Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar (2005) 7 SCC 690: The Supreme Court reiterated that fraud vitiates all actions, and even long years of service cannot cure an inherently void appointment.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court applied the principle that fraud vitiates everything and emphasized that the petitioner’s entire employment was illegal from inception. It noted that “an appointment which is void ab initio does not create any legal right in the appointee,” and as such, there is no need for a formal departmental inquiry.
The Court rejected the plea of length of service, holding that “no right can flow from an illegal act,” and any sympathetic view would be against public interest and the rights of genuine Scheduled Caste candidates.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had no enforceable right since the employment was secured through a fraudulent caste certificate. The Court observed: “The Constitution protects genuine rights, not rights founded on deceit.”
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the principle that any appointment secured through fraud, particularly in relation to reserved category claims, is void from the beginning and confers no protection under service jurisprudence. It sends a strong message that forged documents in public employment will not be tolerated, irrespective of the duration of service rendered.
FAQs
1. Can a government employee be dismissed without inquiry if their appointment was based on a fake caste certificate?
Yes. If the appointment is found to be obtained through a fraudulent caste certificate, it is considered void from the beginning, and no formal departmental inquiry is required.
2. Does Article 311 protect an employee who got a job using a false caste certificate?
No. Article 311 applies only to validly appointed government servants. A person appointed on the basis of a fraudulent document has no legal appointment and thus cannot claim such protection.
3. Can long service be a ground to regularize an appointment based on a forged document?
No. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that fraud vitiates everything. Length of service cannot legalize an appointment that was void ab initio.
Referred Cases Summary
- Kumari Madhuri Patil: Set out the process for verification of caste certificates and held that any appointment based on a false caste certificate is invalid.
- M. Bhaskaran: Clarified that fraud nullifies appointments and that Article 311 does not protect such employees.
- Avinash D. Mandivikar: Emphasized that equity or sympathy cannot be invoked to protect fraudulent appointments.
