Termination of employment based on an entry secured through fraudulent acts does not require formal disciplinary procedures meant for validly appointed servants. However, such termination still mandates adherence to essential principles of natural justice to ensure procedural fairness prior to impacting the incumbent’s livelihood.

JUDGMENT :

SUNIL BENIWAL, J.

1. Since the present bunch of special appeals involves identical questions of law and facts, the same are being decided by this common order.

2. At the outset, it is noted that there was a delay in filing some of the appeals tagged in the present bunch. While such delay has already been condoned in certain appeals, it has not been condoned in the remaining matters. However, considering that the controversy involved in all the appeals is identical, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the matters on merits. Accordingly, in order to maintain parity, the delay in filing the following appeals is also condoned:

(i) DB SAW No.1162/2025

(ii) DB SAW No.1175/2025

(iii) DB SAW No.1176/2025

(iv) DB SAW No.1177/2025

(v) DB SAW No.1185/2025

(vi) DB SAW No.1192/2025

(vii) DB SAW No.1468/2025

(viii) DB SAW No.1752/2025

(ix) DB SAW No.1753/2025

(x) DB SAW No.1759/2025

(xi) DB SAW No.1798/2025

3. The issue in the present bunch of appeals arises from the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Shravan Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4298/2025 (decided on 08.05.2025). The said judgment has been assailed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1188/2025, which is tagged in the present bunch. The remaining appeals arise out of orders whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment rendered in Shravan Choudhary (supra).

4. For brevity, facts of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1188/2025 are being considered as the detailed judgment was rendered in the case of Shravan Choudhary (supra) which has been assailed in the said special appeal.

4.1. The facts of the case, as narrated in the memo of appeal, are that the respondent-petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4298/2025 challenging the order dated 15.01.2025, whereby his services on the post of Physical Training Instructor were terminated. It was pleaded that, pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2022 issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSSB’), the respondent-petitioner applied for the said post, participated in the selection process, and upon being selected, was issued an appointment order dated 18.09.2023, in pursuance whereof he joined service.

4.2. While the respondent-petitioner was discharging duties as Physical Training Instructor, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 24.12.2024. Though he submitted a reply thereto, the appellants, being dissatisfied with the same, passed the termination order dated 15.01.2025. The respondent-petitioner, therefore, sought quashing of the said order with consequential reinstatement.

4.3. The appellants opposed the writ petition by asserting that discrepancies were found in the documents submitted by the respondent-petitioner for securing appointment and that, upon preliminary enquiry, it was found that he had obtained employment by playing fraud. It was thus pleaded that his reply to the show-cause notice was not satisfactory and the termination order was justified.

4.4. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 08.05.2025, allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination order dated 15.01.2025 and directed reinstatement of the respondent- petitioner, while leaving it open for the appellants to proceed in accordance with law after completion of the ongoing enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the present special appeal.

5. Learned A