Service Law – Termination from service – When not justified – Appellant-Clerk was terminated from service alleging that the appointment order was issued by an incompetent authority Deputy Director, Human Resources Development Department (DDHRD) and was illegal; and that the appellant had forged the appointment order – Termination upheld by High Court – Interference with:
Held: Order of termination is untenable on fact and record – The reasoning that the appointment order was issued by DDHRD is incorrect as the appointment order was issued by Government of Bihar, Human Resource Development Department, and signed by Additional Director and not by DDHRD – Further, mere bald statement that the appointment was based on forged document or on fraud is not sufficient – Appellant worked for more than 16 years regularly, was regularly paid salary by the department, and has thus, acquired the status of permanent employee – Mere correspondence of an officer alleging non-issuance of appointment memo is not enough to prove such fraud, particularly when such appointment was made in furtherance to an advertisement, and while terminating the services, it is said that order of appointment was issued by incompetent authority – Allegation of fraud has not been pleaded and substantiated – In case the record was not traceable, it would not ipso facto make the appointment forged or fabricated – If the department was of the opinion that the order of appointment is not available on record, an enquiry should have been conducted for looking into the alleged forgery in issuance of the appointment order – In absence of any such enquiry, allegations of fraud and fabrication leading to termination are unjustified – Orders passed by the High Court set aside – Termination order quashed – Appellant to be reinstated with 50% back wages and all the consequential benefits – Fraud. [Paras 12, 15, 22, 24] Service Law – Termination from service, on ground of fraud – Non-production of the record by Department – Adverse inference to be drawn:
Held: When the allegation of forgery or fraud has been made by the State Government, it must have some foundation – In cases where mere allegation of fraud has been made without any foundation and then the records have been called by the Court to assess such allegations, it is the duty of the Head of the Department to produce the same for perusal – In the present case, if the said record was not traceable, then it was the duty of the Department to identify who was responsible for misplacing such record, and an enquiry in this regard ought to have been conducted against the defaulting person and report in that regard should have been placed – In absence thereof, mere plea of non-traceability of the record is insufficient – Thus, despite granting multiple opportunities, which resulted in non-production of the record, in the facts, adverse inference drawn against the respondents. [Para 22] Words and Phrases – Fraud – Meaning and impact – Discussed. [Paras 17-20]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.