Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1034

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Naresh Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4661 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8840 of 2022)
Decided On : 02-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Termination – Forged appointment – When allegation of forgery or fraud has been made by State Government, it must have some foundation – Mere correspondence of an officer alleging non-issuance of appointment memo is not enough to prove such fraud.
(2) Fraud – Without any allegation of fraud, merely using word fraud is not sufficient.

Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Termination – Forged appointment – Respondents have not disputed issuance of advertisement, in furtherance to which appellant was appointed – In absence of any specific denial, it may be concluded that appointment of appellant was after following the due process of law – On submitting joining, he was allowed to perform his duties and he had served Department for more than 16 years – Reasons assigned in order of termination are factually incorrect and based on extraneous consideration which cannot be accepted – When allegation of forgery or fraud has been made by State Government, it must have some foundation – Mere correspondence of an officer alleging non-issuance of appointment memo is not enough to prove such fraud – No pleading or foundation which includes any of ingredients of fraud has been put forth or substantiated – Mere bald statement that appointment was based on forged document or on fraud is not sufficient – Order of termination is based on a reasoning which is per se untenable on fact and record – Order of termination quashed – Appellant to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages, alongwith all consequential benefits – Appeal allowed. (Paras 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23 and 24)
(B) Fraud – Proof of – Without any allegation of fraud, merely using word fraud is not sufficient – Any false statement made carelessly and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true may be evidence of fraud – However, it does not mean that it would necessarily amount to fraud – Any statement made with honest belief in its truthfulness is not fraudulent and would not render the person liable for a fraudulent act. (Paras 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Appellant assails the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No.379 of 2018. In the LPA, order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15852 of 2006 dated 20.02.2018 was challenged wherein order of termination dated 21.11.2005, was in question. As such, by orders impugned, interference in the order of termination of service of appellant had been declined.
Findings of Court:
Findings recorded by Single Judge and Division Bench are also without due consideration of facts and are not based on sound reasoning, hence, liable to be set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. evaluation of the appellant's termination process (Para 2)
2. termination without due process based on alleged forgery. (Para 3 , 4)
3. high court upheld the termination citing incompetence in appointment. (Para 5 , 6)
4. long service undermined by sudden termination based on show cause notice. (Para 9 , 10)
5. allegations of fraud not substantiated or formally laid out. (Para 12 , 15)
6. nature of fraud requires clear substantiation; mere allegation is insufficient. (Para 17 , 18 , 22)
7. importance of due process and substantiation in fraud allegations (Para 20)
8. discussion on the inadequateness of evidence for fraud (Para 21)
9. termination quashed; reinstatement ordered with back wages. (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant assails the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No.379 of 2018. In the LPA, the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15852 of 2006 dated 20.02.2018 was challenged wherein the order of termination dated 21.11.2005, was in question. As such, by the orders impugned, interference in the order of termination of service of appellant had been declined.

3. The facts shorn of details are that in furtherance to an advertisement dated 22.06.1981, appellant was appointed as clerk vide order dated 24.06.1989, and posted at S.M.T. High School, Vaishali, Bihar. He submitted his joining on 04.07.1989 which was initially resisted by headmaster but later he was allowed to join and he performed his duty. Thereafter, on transfer to other schools, he worked for more than one and a half decade. On 19.09.2005, the District Education Officer, Patna issued a show cause notice, alleging that his appointment was forged and vide order dated 21.11.2005, his services were terminated without following the due process of law. Appeal filed against such termination was also rejected vide order dated 13.10.2006.

4. Being dissatisfied, Writ Petition was filed which was dismissed. During pendency of the writ petition, learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.07.2011 sought report with respect to the genuineness of the appointment order. The same was filed along with an affidavit, inter alia, stating that the original file of appointment could not be traced, but the file relating to transfer of newly appointed clerks in 10+2 secondary schools has been traced out. It was said that the order of appointment was issued in violation of the terms of Circular No.16440 dated 02.12.1980 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and relying on those averments held that the order of appointment could have been issued at the level of the Directorate and not at the level of Deputy Director, Human Resources Development Department (in short “DDHRD”). As such, appointment of the appellant was issued by an incompetent authority and was illegal. Further, with reference to dispatch number of the order, it was observed that the register was relating to transfer of clerks which also does not tally. Thus, the contention of appellant with respect to issuance of appointment by the same dispatch was not accepted, because it will not make the appointment of the appellant genuine. As such, learned Single Judge refused to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.

5. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the appellant filed the impugned LPA before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed relying on the same report and affidavit, wherein the Division Bench held that the appointment of appellant was not issued at the appropriate level by the Department, hence, found to be forged. Accordingly, the Division Bench maintained the order of learned Single Judge.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is inter-alia stated that the DDHRD was incompetent to appoint Class III employees in the schools. Thus, when the order of appointment was not issued by the competent auth