An appointment obtained through fraudulent means is null and void, and no departmental inquiry is required to terminate such service.

ORDER :

Anand Pathak, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant being crestfallen by the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4715 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that appellant was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 15.07.1988 passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Narsinghpur. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.05.1989, the services of petitioner were absorbed in the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer Morena in Universal Immunization Center, Morena. In compliance thereof, he joined at Morena on 09.06.1989. Since then he was working in the department.

3. It appears that some complaints were made to Lokayukta and inquiry started by Lokayukta organization with regard to his appointment. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 09.05.2014 was issued by respondent No.4-Joint Director, Health Services, City Center, Gwalior alleging foul play in appointment of petitioner. Name and address of father of appellant in the appointment order were not mentioned. Even it was found that appointment order of appellant does not bear the signatures of the then Chief Medial and Health Officer who was the appointing authority and interestingly, no record pertaining to the appointment of petitioner was also found in the office of CMHO, Narsinghpur. His service book was also missing.

4. Appellant filed reply and claimed that his appointment is proper. However, impugned order was passed on 24.07.2014 by the Additional Director (Administration) Directorate of Health Services /respondent No.3. The appointment order dated 15.07.1988 was found to be null and void and his services were terminated. appellant challenged the said termination order in writ petition. Vide impugned order, writ Court dismissed the petition. Therefore, appellant is before this Court.

5. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant that to arrive to the conclusion that fraud has been committed, departmental inquiry was required to be conducted. No such inquiry was conducted therefore, impugned order is vitiated. It is further submitted that initial show cause notice was issued purportedly under Rule 10 (4) of The M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which is for inflicting minor penalty. However, petitioner was visited with major penalty of termination of service. This is bad in law.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submits that learned writ Court rightly considered the case on the basis of fraud being perpetrated by the appellant while getting appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Since, fraud has not been committed in respect of any action during the course of employment and the very appointment was based upon forged documents as well as the fact that no documents was produced regarding his appointment therefore, there was no requirement existed to conduct departmental inquiry. Appellant obtained appointment fraudulently. He refers four points referred by the authority in show cause notice dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure P-6).

7. The said points were raised in inquiry conducted by the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Gwalior. On the basis of those four points, show cause notice was answered by the appellant and after considering the reply, he has been terminated. Learned counsel for the respondents/State relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of The State Of Bihar and Ors. vs Kirti Narayan Prasad (2019) 13 SCC 250 . He prayed for dismissal of appeal.

8. Heard the rival submissions.

9. This is the case where services of appellant were terminated on the ground that he obtained appointment through forged documents/fraud.

10. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the