Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Seetaram Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 6609 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pawan Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Ajay Kumrani

An appointment obtained through the submission of forged documents is void ab initio; where such fraud is clearly established and the employee has been given an opportunity of hearing, the failure to conduct a formal departmental enquiry does not violate principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 311 - Termination of service - Obtained on basis of forged documents - Whether full-fledged departmental enquiry mandatory - Petitioner obtained employment by producing forged mark-sheet of B.Ed. which was verified by University and stated to be not genuine - Principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem - Pre-decisional notice and opportunity of hearing provided to petitioner - Held, where appointment is obtained by fraud, it is void ab initio and no departmental enquiry is required as it would be futile; no constitutional protection under Art. 311 is available to such appointees. (Paras 3, 6, 13, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-II. Subsequent verification of his B.Ed. mark-sheet from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University revealed it was forged and records did not match. The petitioner was issued a notice, appeared in person, and admitted he had no other valid mark-sheet. His service was terminated due to the forged document. He challenged the termination, claiming violation of principles of natural justice for want of a departmental enquiry.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the petitioner was given a pre-decisional hearing and notice. The essence of fraud vitiates the entire appointment process. Consequently, the absence of a formal departmental enquiry did not cause prejudice to the petitioner, and he cannot claim protection for an illegal appointment.

Issues: Whether the termination of service, based on the submission of a forged mark-sheet to obtain employment, is invalid due to the absence of a full-fledged departmental enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud unravels everything. When an appointment is obtained by means of a forged document, the appointment is void from its inception. In such cases of proven fraud where the employee admits or is given an opportunity to clarify, the requirement of holding a full-fledged departmental enquiry is not mandatory, as the test of prejudice fails when the illegality is fundamentally established and admitted.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges termination for lack of departmental enquiry after being dismissed for forged mark-sheet. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court establishes petitioner was granted hearing and admission of forged documents negates need for enquiry. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. precedent established that fraud vitiates appointments and negates protection of art. 311 or enquiry rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. distinguishing prior cases where termination was based on stigmatizing non-fraudulent grounds. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. termination upheld as non-holding of enquiry caused no prejudice where employment was obtained by fraud. (Para 26 , 27)

CAV Order

1. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II on probation for a period of 3 years vide order dated 06.12.2007. He was confirmed on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II. He thereafter continuously worked as Shikshakarmi Grade-II. His services were terminated vide order dated 07.06.2024 (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner after his appointment on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II on probation, upon successfully completion of probation period, he was confirmed in service vide order dated 24.08.2011. Petitioner was a permanent employee. However, order of termination is passed without following due process of law i.e. initiating departmental enquiry against him by issuing charge memo framing charges against him. Termination of service of petitioner in absence of full-fledged departmental enquiry is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore order of termination be quashed. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision in case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. [SLP (C) No.8788-8789 of 2023, decided on 16.04.2024] and decision of this Court in case of Rajesh Kumar Deshmukh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.3003 of 2016, decided on 26.11.2024], Mithai Lal Dhruw Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.3031 of 2016, decided on 21.03.2023), Niranjan Prasad Raisagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (WPS No.6658 of 2021 decided on 04.12.2025), Md. Arshad Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.8967 of 2023, decided on 19.09.2025), Smt. Manju Bhagat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.1477 of 2025, decided on 27.02.2025), Deepak Dhara Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (WPS No.5328 of 2016, decided on 06.01.2025), Yaad Das Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.8212 of 2023, decided on 03.01.2025), Digmbar Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.4969 of 2015, decided on 22.08.2024).

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State would vehemently oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that writ petition is not maintainable as petitioner is having alternate remedy of appeal under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 . He submits that upon getting knowledge about petitioner obtaining employment based on forged mark-sheet, it was enquired into. Petitioner was given notice to appear in person along with relevant documents before the authority on 20.05.2024 and 24.05.2024. Respondent authority has also verified the mark-sheet of B.Ed. from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, and according to letter written by Dy. Registrar of the University name of student (petitioner) mentioned in the University’s record (tabulation and chart) is not matching with the particulars of student mentioned in the mark-sheet and further mentioned that mark-sheet sent for verification is not issued by the University. Based on the said letter of University, petitioner was given notice for appearing and after giving him opportunity of hearing, order was passed. Therefore there is no violation of principles of natural justice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURParth Prateem Sahu, JSeetaram Sahu – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 6609 of 2025

An appointment obtained through the submission of forged documents is void ab initio; where such fraud is clearly established and the employee has been given an opportunity of hearing, the failure to conduct a formal departmental enquiry does not violate principles of natural justice.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Seetaram Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 6609 of 2025