IMPORTANT POINT
Fraud vitiates all proceedings; employment obtained through fraudulent means does not require adherence to procedural protections under disciplinary rules.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Shri Rahul Mishra and Shri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hare Ram, learned counsel for the BSA and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned brief holder on behalf of the State.

2. By the impugned order dated 04.10.2024, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the footing that his educational testimonials/certificates pertaining to the TET Examination were found to be forged.

3. The petitioner was noticed by order dated 27.04.2024 that his educational certificates of TET were found to be forged. A report from the Board of the High School and Intermediate Education dated 02.09.2020 which had purportedly issued the said certificate had recorded that the petitioner had failed in the TET Examination. The documents adverse to the petitioner including the report of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education were served upon the petitioner along with the show cause notice. The petitioner in response to the show cause notice acknowledged the receipt of the aforesaid report issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education dated 02.09.2020. The reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner adverts to certain disputes in the TET-2011 Examination results. The petitioner has also stated that the actual results of the petitioner can be determined if his answer sheets are summoned and evaluated by the employer.

4. The response of the petitioner did not find favour with the authority and hence the impugned order. The impugned order adverts to the report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education dated 02.09.2020 along with other relied on documents and finds that the TET certificate of the petitioner was forged. The appointment of the petitioner was vitiated by the fraud and accordingly his services were terminated.

5. The natural justice cannot be cast in a strait-jacket formula. The principles of natural justice are applied with a view to the facts of a particular case. In the instant case, the petitioner was put to notice on the charges of fraudulent educational certificates against him. The documents adverse to the petitioner and proposed to be relied upon by the respondent-department were duly served upon him. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner as tendered his defence to the charges enumerated in the show cause notice. The aforesaid reply submitted by the petitioner was duly considered in the impugned order. One of the tests of proper application of the principles of natural justice is whether any prejudice has been caused to the noticee by the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority. No prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the procedure adopted by the authority. In the facts of this case, principles of natural justice has been duly complied with. The impugned order is supported with reasons & there is no perversity in the same.

6. The question now arises as to whether a regular departmental enquiry ought to have been conducted in the facts of this case. The applicability of the UP Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 for the purposes of holding a regular departmental enquiry in similar facts fell for consideration before a learned Division Bench of this Court in District Basic Education Officer and another vs. Punita Singh and others., Special Appeal Defective No.-506 of 2024.

7. In the case of Punita Singh (supra), the services of the petitioner were terminated on the footing that her educational certificates were forged and fabricated. The question arose whether in these facts, the issuance of show cause notice and compliance of broad principles of natural justice were sufficient to meet the ends of justice or it was imperative to hold a regular departmental enquiry. In this context, while considering the applicability of Rules, 1999, the learned Division Bench of this Court held :

"16. From the above determination, it is apparent that the University has