IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
Kamlesh Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thorugh The Principal Secy. Irrigation Dept. - Respondent
Writ - A No. - 4029 of 2011
Decided On : 31-05-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Quashing order - Held, Court held that ratio laid down by Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruit and benefit to persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation - Court should not perpetuate fraud intrinsic collateral fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate most solemn proceedings of courts of justice - Fraud as a deliberate deception with a design to secure otherwise not due expression fraud involves deceit and injury to person deceived - Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
1. Heard Shri G.M.Kamil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Through this petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the oral order of dispensing the services of the petitioner dated 16.12.2010 passed by opposite party no.5 and also a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work on his post and pay him salary each and every month regularly.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on muster roll as daily wager in Work Charge Establishment as Work Supervisor vide Office Memorandum 369/W-1/Sin.Kha.Ta dated 12.3.2003 by the order of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tanda- Ambedkar Nagar and he was posted at IInd Sub Division, Baskhari, in compliance of the Office Memorandum dated 20.2.2003 passed by Engineer-In-Chief (Work Charge Establishment Prakoshtha), Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow. In compliance of letter dated 20.02.2003, the petitioner has joined on 5.7.2003.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the service book of the petitioner was also prepared on 05.07.2003. Thereafter vide order dated 07.07.2003 the Superintending Engineer, 12th circle, Irrigation Work, Ganga Sinchai Bhawan, Telibagh, Lucknow, appointed the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk in pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 in regular establishment, from work charge establishment in backlog quota of Schedule Caste, in Group "C" and posted at Irrigation Department, Sharda Nagar, Lakhimpur Kheri, in compliance of D.O. letter dated 13.06.2003 of Chief Engineer (Sharda Sahayak), Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ambedkar Nagar relieved the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his joining on 27.7.2003 before Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sharda Nagar, Lakhimpur Kheri. Vide Office Memorandum dated 10.9.2007 the services of the petitioner was confirmed to the post of Junior Clerk with effect from the date of issuance of order in order to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Clerk (pay scale of Rupees 4000-6000) from the post of Junior Clerk. Thereafter, a Committee was constituted by Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sharda Nagar, Lakhimpur Kheri to examine the original documents of the petitioner, however, name of the petitioner was not released for promotion for the post of Senior Clerk although the original documents of the petitioner were verified and no suspicion was found. Subsequently, vide Office Memorandum dated 04.12.2010, charge of the petitioner was given to Naim Ahamad, Senior Clerk by opposite party no.5. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has handed over his complete charge to Naim Ahmad on 16.12.2010. The petitioner has proceeded on casual leave and has returned on 20.02.2011 with a request to make payment of salary for the month of December, 2010 onwards.
6. It is submitted that since 16.12.2010 the petitioner has not been authorized to do work nor paid his salary nor any inquiry has been contemplated against the petitioner as provided under Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 nor the petitioner has been permitted to resume duty.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has started working in the Work Charge Establishment in the Irrigation Division Tanda Ambedkar Nagar in furtherance of the order dated 20.2.2003 allegedly passed by the Engineer-in-Chief (Work Charge Establishment) Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar vide letter dated 24.3.2003 has requested for information regarding the joining on which it was informed vide letter dated 24.4.2010 by the Executive Engineer Office of the Engineer in Chief (Work Charge Establishmen
Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Neeraj Awasthi
Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.)
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh
Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar
Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Suryachandra Ran AIR 2005 SC 3110: 2005 AIR SCW 3603: (2005) 6 SCC 149
Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhalika Gor Prasad Dahir
Fraudulent appointments in public service are void ab initio, and individuals cannot claim rights or benefits from such appointments.
An appointment obtained through fraudulent means is null and void, and no departmental inquiry is required to terminate such service.
Appointments secured by misrepresentation or on the basis of forged documents are non est in the eyes of the law and do not create any right in favor of the person so appointed. Fraud vitiates everyt....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.