Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director and Others – Respondents
CWP Nos. 6624, 8395 of 2013, CWP Nos. 2642, 4574, 5145 of 2015, CWP Nos. 18580, 20932, 20991, 21446, 21933, 23390, 23419, 24157 of 2016, CWP No. 5364 of 2017, CWP No. 8091 of 2018
Decided On : 29-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vaneet Soni, Manoj Tanwar, Tarun Yadav, Saurabh Gulia, Vijay Pal, Akash Lather, Lokendra, Arvind K. Bangar, Arun Singla, Ravi Ambawata, Sanjay Mittal
For the Respondents: Manuj Kaushik, Tarsem Rana, Prince Singh, Ashok S. Chaudhary

Employment termination due to fraudulent certification requires strict adherence to prescribed regulations, prioritizing lawful procedures even post long service. Fraud undermines legitimacy, mandating appropriate verification measures by authorities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226/227 - Employment termination - Dismissal from service due to alleged employment on basis of fake certificate issued by an unrecognised institution - The disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the prescribed regulations for major punishment; lack of proper procedure invalidates dismissal - Emphasising that even if the appointment was based on invalid qualifications, proper procedures and exhausting all avenues are essential before terminating a long-serving employee's position. (Paras 6, 11, 20)

(B) Fraudulent certification - Legal maxims applied included nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria and sublato fundamento cadit opus indicate that fraud vitiates all transactions, leading to the conclusion that employment based on a fraudulent certificate cannot be validated, regardless of the duration served. (Paras 11, 14, 17)

(C) Eligibility criteria - It was underscored that conditions of appointment must be fulfilled at the time of recruitment and that a delay by the employer in verifying qualifications does not confer legitimacy to the appointment made on fraudulent grounds. (Paras 12, 19)

(D) Responsibility of State - The Court directed the State to implement proper verification protocols to prevent future occurrences of employment based on fraudulent credentials. (Paras 18, 20)

Table of Content
1. eligibility criteria for state employment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. employer's prerogative in recruitment standards. (Para 9)
4. consequences of fraudulent employment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. final determination and compliance orders. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of all the writ petitions mentioned above as they arise from similar factual matrix and also pose a similar question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-18580-2016.

2. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of office order No.228 dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed from service, as well as show cause notice dated 14.03.2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The respondent-DHBVN initiated recruitment process for filling up the vacancies for the post of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and various other posts through respondent No.4-Haryana Staff Selection Commission vide advertisement No.4 of 2008. The advertisement laid down the following eligibility criteria:

“Matric with two years ITI in Electrician/Wireman trade or having 2 years Vocational Course under the trade of Lineman conducted by Director, ITI &Vocational Education, Haryana from any institute recognised by the State Government and must have passed Hindi/Sanskrit up to Matric Standard.”

4. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of ALM under the Backward Class- B (BC-B) category. Upon ascertaining the eligibility of the petitioner, he was called for the written test followed by an interview. Thereafter, he was appointed as an ALM vide letter dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) which reiterated the eligibility criteria and called upon the petitioner to submit original certificates in support of his qualifications at the time of joining. The ITI certificate of the petitioner was sent to the Principal, National Industrial Training Institute (Vocational Training Centre), Rewari (hereinafter ‘NITI, Rewari’) for verification. The same was successfully verified and the service of the petitioner was confirmed. As a matter of fact, he was also promoted to the post of Lineman vide office order dated 31.12.2014.

5. After a lapse of about 06 years, respondent-DHBVN suspended the service of the petitioner vide order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that he had obtained his appointment on the basis of a fake certificate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved this Court by means of CWP-5930-2016 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2016. A show cause notice dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner in furtherance of which he submitted a detailed reply. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-6).

CONTENTIONS

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a confirmed employee of respondent-DHBVN and the any disciplinary proceedings initiated against him have to be strictly in terms of DHBVN Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter ‘Regulations of 2016’). Since dismissal from service is a major punishment, the procedure laid down under Regulation 7 has to be followed. However, in contravention of the same, neither any charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner nor any misconduct in terms of the Regulations of 2016 has been proved against him; as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.

7. He further argued that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the false premise that his ITI certificate is fake, which has not been established on record. The petitioner had submitted all relevant