Dismissed

Shailendri Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Oct 2018WPS/5367/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging show cause notices issued to Siksha Karmis regarding termination of employment. The Court held that the notices were not post-decisional as opportunities were provided, and rejected equitable relief because employment obtained by fraud is not protected.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted to petitioners is vacated and writ petitions dismissed; authorities to consider future replies.

Shailendri Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5446 of 2009

¶5

Birbal Kumar Khosle S/o Shri Jatram Khosle, aged about 28 years, R/o Qtr. No. M/582, Ompur Rajgamarg, District Korba (C.G.).

Petitioner

…

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶10

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶11

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

WPS No. 5326 of 2009

¶14

Usman Khan S/o Late Shri Jabbar Khan, aged about 26 years, R/o Gram and Post Pasan, Tehsil Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶15

… Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶18

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶19

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶20

… Respondents

¶21

WPS No. 5362 of 2009

¶22

Ram Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Tribhuvan Yadav, aged about 29 years, R/o Gram and Post Binjhara, Tehsil Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶23

… Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶26

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶27

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶28

… Respondents

¶29

¶30

WPS No. 5367 of 2009

¶31

Shailendri Sahu W/o Shri Chatram Sahu, aged about 23 years, R/o Mishra Bhawan, Prakash S.T.D., Pali road, Deepika, District Korba (C.G.).

¶32

… Petitioner

¶33

Versus

¶34

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶35

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶36

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶37

… Respondents

¶38

WPS No. 5371 of 2009

¶39

Sushama Sahu W/o Shri Ramnarrayan Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Gram Hathitikra, Post Banari, District Janjgri-Champa (C.G.).

¶40

… Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶43

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶44

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶45

… Respondents

¶46

WPS No. 5372 of 2009

¶47

Shrawan Kumar S/o Shri Jeet Singh, aged about 29 years, R/o Gram and Post Binjhara, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.).

¶48

… Petitioner

¶49

Versus

¶50

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶51

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶52

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶53

… Respondents

¶54

WPS No. 5382 of 2009

¶55

Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Bhisnu Kumar Agrawal, aged about 24 years, R/o Gram Sirki, Post Rawa, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.).

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶60

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶61

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶62

… Respondents

¶63

WPS No. 5433 of 2009

¶64

Aruna Gupta W/o Shri Sanjay Gupta, aged about 29 years, R/o Gram and Post Piparia, via- Pendra, Tehsil Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶65

… Petitioner

¶66

Versus

¶67

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶68

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶69

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶70

… Respondents

¶71

WPS No. 5447 of 2009

¶72

Samaylal Khunte S/o Shri Chotu Khunte, aged about 28 years, R/o Gram and Post Sirmina, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.).

¶73

… Petitioner

¶74

Versus

¶75

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶76

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶77

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶78

… Respondents

¶79

WPS No. 5449 of 2009

¶80

Savitri Kumari Pulast D/o Late Shri Tribhuvan Singh, aged about 22 years, R/o Gram Sonpuri and Post Binjhara, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.).

Petitioner

…

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶85

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶86

¶87

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶88

… Respondents

¶89

WPS No. 5723 of 2009

¶90

Omprakash Goswami S/o Shri Rameshwar Ban Goswami, aged about 25 years, R/o Gram and Post Churikala, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.).

¶91

… Petitioner

¶92

Versus

¶93

State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.).

¶94

Collector, District Korba (C.G.).

¶95

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.).

¶96

… Respondents

¶97

For petitioners : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate.
For respective respondents : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate.
For State : Shri R.K.Gupta, Dy.A.G.

¶98

Hon ' ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy CAV Order

¶99

Delievered on 09/10/2018

¶100

These are the bunch of Writ Petitions which have been filed assailing

¶101

the show cause notice dated 22/08/2009 seeking an explanation from the

¶102

petitioners as to why their services should not be terminated.

¶103

Cutting shot all the unwanted factual details, the brief facts in all these

¶104

cases is that, in Janpad Panchayat, Podi-Uproda, under district Korba in the

¶105

year 2007, a recruitment drive was held for filling up the post of Siksha

¶106

– Karmi Grade-III.

¶107

The requirement under the advertisement for the said post apart from

¶108

the minimum qualification was that the candidate should also have the

¶109

¶110

requisite experience. All the petitioners in the present Bunch of Writ Petitions – were recommended and appointed also as Siksha Karmi Grade-III vide a common order dated 13/12/2007 and on which the petitioners have acted upon by giving joining and are continuing with the said work.

¶111

That, after about almost 1 ½ years service, the impugned show cause notice has been issued. It is this show cause notice which is under challenge in all these Bunch of Writ Petitions.

¶112

The factual matrix in all the Writ Petitions if not identical are almost similar. The date of appointment and the show cause notice under challenge also is of the same date. Since, the factual matrix being the same, this Court is inclined to hear all these petitions by way of analogous hearing and have also decided to dispose off all these Writ Petitions by this common judgment.

¶113

The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the matter has already been reflected in the preceding paragraphs.

¶114

The contents of the impugned show cause notice issued is that, the petitioners have got employment with the respondents by playing fraud/mischief in as much as, for the purpose of getting employment, the petitioners have produced fake and fraudulent documents like experience certificate etc. The contention was that, the petitioners on the basis of the said fake and fraudulent experience certificate have obtained extra marks on account of which they improved their merit position and were able to get employment.

¶115

¶116

According to the respondents, if the petitioners would not have been granted marks for the experience certificate, then perhaps the petitioners would not have been successful in getting appointment. It is for this fraudulent act that the show cause notice was issued calling for an explanation from the petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated.

¶117

It was the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, the impugned order is bad in law for the reason that the authorities concerned have passed the impugned order with a pre-determined mind of terminating the services of the petitioner. It was also the contention of the petitioner that, the show

¶118

cause notice issued by the respondents is nothing but a post decision hearing which is being adopted by the respondents. Hence is bad in law.

¶119

Referring to the impugned order, the petitioner submitted that the contents of the show cause notice itself shows that the respondents have taken a decision for terminating the services of the petitioner and thereafter has issued the show cause notice. As such the procedure adopted is nothing

¶120

but only an eye-wash or an empty formality being complied with by the respondents in the garb of ensuring the principle of natural justice.

¶121

According to the petitioners, they had produced sufficient material before the authorities concerned to establish the fact that their experience certificate was not either fake or fraudulent, but was a genuine document.

¶122

According to the petitioners, the General Administration Committee of

¶123

the Janpad Panchayat had on 08/10/2009 passed a resolution holding that,

¶124

¶125

the issuance of show cause notice by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat was bad in law and has been passed by passing the General Administration Committee which is the body which has been empowered for – taking action against any of the Siksha Karmi Grade-III working under the Janpad Panchayat.

¶126

The counsel for the petitioner in support of its contention heavily relied upon the judgment of this High Court in the case of Bharti Shankar v. State of C.G. [WPS 5853/2006 decided on 04/03/2008] and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Vimal Chopra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPC 2788/2007 decided on 29/09/2008]. Relying upon these two judgments it was submitted that, it is the words used in show cause notice which would decide whether it is post decisional hearing or whether it is infact a show cause notice required for a predecision hearing.

¶127

In addition, the counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of V.C.Banaras Hindu University & Ors. v. Shrikant ]2006 11 SCC

¶128

42] , Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2006 12 SCC 33] and Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India & Anr. [2007 1 SCC 331] .

¶129

In addition, the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Dhaluram Kosaria v. State of Chhattisgarh [WP 2859/2003 decided on 07/07/2006] in support of his contention.

¶130

¶131

It was lastly contended by the petitioners that, the fact which is undisputed as on date is that, the petitioners have been appointed wayback on 13/12/2007 and since then the petitioners are continuously working on the said post and by filing the present Writ Petition also the petitioners were

¶132

granted an interim protection by virtue of which they are still working under the respondents and they have by now put in about more than 11 years of service and as such it would not be fruitful any further in discontinuing the

¶133

services of the petitioners and this Court may under equitable justice protect the services of the petitioners condoning the lapse or irregularity if any taking into consideration the qualification of the petitioners and 11-12 years of

¶134

service that they have rendered by now since the date of appointment.

¶135

In support of its contention, the counsel for the petitioners relied upon

¶136

the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. v. State of West Bangal &

¶137

Ors. [2009 1 SCC 768] and also upon the case of State of Orissa &

¶138

Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty [2011 3 SCC 436] .

¶139

Per contra, the counsel for the respondents opposing the petition submits that, the whole issue germinates on the fraudulent conduct of the petitioner.

¶140

According to the State counsel, it is the case where the petitioners have used unfair means for obtaining public employment and the if the basis on which the appointment was granted itself is found to be fake or have been

¶141

obtained by fraudulent methods, the very appointment itself gets vitiated.

¶142

According to the State Counsel a candidate who has used unfair means for

¶143

¶144

getting the employment looses the element of sympathy and for such candidates, the doctrine of equity cannot be applied for granting them any sort of relaxation or condoning the fraud played by such candidates.

¶145

According to the respondents, since the foundation of employment itself

¶146

was based on fraud therefore the petitioner would be governed by the conditions stipulated with the appointment order.

¶147

According to the respondents, Annexure-P/2 is the order of appointment where clause 8 emphatically envisages that, at a later stage, if it is found that the documents for obtaining employment is illegal then the appointment would automatically stand cancelled.

¶148

Relying upon this clause, the counsel for the respondents banked upon

¶149

the show cause notice under challenge contending that infact in the factual scenario, there was no need for even issuance of show cause notice. The

¶150

petitioners service could have been simply terminated on the experience certificate being found to be fake and the employment obtained by fraud.

¶151

According to the State counsel, infact by issuance of show cause notice

¶152

the authorities have shown a great amount of fairness in their approach so also they have kept in mind the doctrine of natural justice and therefore the impugned notice do not require any interference at this juncture.

¶153

According to the State counsel, the contents of the show cause notice

¶154

itself is self-explanatory in as much as the plain reading of the averments made in the show cause notice would itself reveal the nature of fraud played

¶155

by the petitioners for the purpose of obtaining employment. The show cause

¶156

¶157

notice specifically dealt with the findings of the authorities on scrutiny of the

¶158

documents which the petitioners had submitted for this purpose.

¶159

According to the counsel for the respondents, the petitioners at the outset itself had not produced the original of the experience certificate with which it could be verified whether the same was a genuine certificate issued or was a fake document. In addition, the finding also was that the statement of witness was not inspiring confidence as the facts itself became self-

¶160

contradictory. It was also the allegation that the so called experience certificate which the petitioners had submitted was not bearing the signature of the competent officer.

¶161

According to the respondents, it is not a case where the petitioners have been abruptly given with the impugned show cause notice. The petitioners have been earlier also issued with a show cause notice as is evident from Annexure-R/1 dated 14/05/2009 wherein the petitioners for the first time was issued with a show cause notice seeking explanation and also for production of original experience certificate and the present show cause

¶162

notice has been issued much after the first show cause notice was issued i.e. almost after 3 months time.

¶163

According to the respondents, the petitioners had also given their reply to the show cause notice and only thereafter the present second show cause

¶164

notice has been passed which means that the petitioner has been given a fair reasonable opportunity of defense, which rather was infact not required as per the conditions attached to the appointment order.

¶165

¶166

According to the respondents, it is not a case which could be said to be a post decisional hearing. It is a case where infact the petitioners were issued with a show cause notice earlier to which he had replied and finding the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice initially issued on 14/05/2009 to be unsatisfactory the present impugned show cause notice have been issued.

¶167

Moreover, the documents which were enclosed by the petitioner to support his contention also did not inspire confidence and therefore when the authorities reached to the conclusion that the appointment issued to the petitioner was by playing fraud and based upon fake and fraudulent document they have issued the impugned show cause notice which technically is the second show cause notice under the service jurisprudence in a disciplinary case seeking final explanation from the petitioners before

¶168

issuance of the final order. The fact that the petitioners were earlier issued show cause notice on 14/05/2009 to which the petitioners had also submitted their respective reply would itself clearly reflect that there has been an opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners before issuance of – the impugned show cause notice Annexure-P/1. Once when there has been a hearing provided to the petitioners, the second show cause notice intimating the delinquent employee about the position of disciplinary authority and seeking for his explanation under no circumstances can be said to be a post decisional hearing.

¶169

¶170

According to the State counsel, though the authorities have in the impugned order mentioned that they have taken a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner, but infact what was meant by the authorities was that since the reply filed by the petitioner to the first show cause notice was

¶171

not satisfactory, the respondents have decided to proceed further and it was in this context the impugned show cause issued on the petitioners.

¶172

Based upon this, the counsel for the respondents further agitated that once when it is established that the appointment has been obtained by fraud or by fraudulent means, it vitiates the very appointment.

¶173

According to the respondents, much weightage should not be given or taken note of on the use of words in the impugned order. It was contended

¶174

by the counsel for the respondents that an opinion has to be framed only after taking into consideration the entire factual matrix of the case.

¶175

It was further the contention of the respondents that taking the entire contents or the pleadings of the Writ Petition it would clearly reflect that no prejudice has been caused to the interest of the petitioners as in any case they have not been able to provide sufficient cogent material to disprove the conditions raised in the first show cause notice. For all the aforesaid reasons, the State counsel prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

¶176

In support of its contention, the State counsel relied upon the case of

¶177

Union of India & Ors. v. M.Bhaskaran [1995 supp. 4 SCC 100] . Similarly, the State counsel also laid emphasis to the principle or the ratio

¶178

laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman & Managing

¶179

¶180

Director Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. [2017 8 SCC 670] .

¶181

Relying upon these two judgments the State counsel further submitted that, since the very foundation of employment/appointment was itself by playing fraud to the extent of using fake documents, the petitioners are not entitled for any sympathetic consideration, nor would they be entitled for equity based relief.

¶182

Moreover, the State counsel submitted that, the length of service put in by the petitioners also was on account of an interim protection by this Court which too would establish the fact that the respondents had detected the illegality in the appointment within a short span of service of the petitioners and for which reason also the petitioners may not be entitled for the equity based relief.

¶183

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, the point of consideration which has been primarily canvased by the petitioners is that, the impugned show cause notice is nothing but a post decisional hearing and secondly it was contended that the petitioners had produced sufficient material along with their reply to the show cause notice to the respondents to establish that the so called experience certificate was

¶184

not fake but was a genuine and lastly the point of consideration would be whether the petitioners are entitled for any equity based relief or not.

¶185

¶186

To decide this issue whether it was a post decisional hearing or not it would be relevant at this juncture to consider the facts of the case that has come on record.

¶187

Undisputedly, the petitioners have got an appointment on 13/12/2007. Lateron, in the course of scrutiny of the documents enclosed it was found that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners were not genuine. It was also found that none of the petitioners had submitted the original experience certificate. It was also found that none of the experience certificate bore the signature of the competent authority who could have issued an experience certificate and the evidence collected on behalf of the petitioners also did not inspire confidence as it was by itself selfcontradictory.

¶188

According to the experience certificate, the petitioners are said to have

¶189

worked as Jan Bhagidari Shikshak for 3 years and the said services rendered was without any wages that is to say according to the petitioners they had performed non-remunerative teaching work whereas the finding is that any person who discharges his duty at the Siksha Kendra they are paid fixed amount of renumeration or honorarium by the Government and if that be so then their contention of having worked or performed as on nonremunerative basis cannot be accepted.

¶190

What is also relevant at this juncture is that, on 14/05/2009, the petitioners were issued with a notice for personal hearing asking the petitioners to appear before the respondent No.3 with all relevant documents

¶191

¶192

in support of their defense particularly in respect of their experience

¶193

certificate.

¶194

Subsequently, the petitioners had also made a statement before the authorities concerned wherein they had stated that the original certificate is

¶195

not fake and the same was already submitted with the respondents, in addition the petitioners did not give any more explanation to the other charges which were levelled against the petitioners.

¶196

Dealing with the issue of post decisional hearing it is also necessary to refer to clause-8 of the order of appointment issued to each of the petitioners. For ready reference it is reproduced herein under:-

¶197

^^8- tk a p ds nkSjku vkids }kjk izLrqr nLrkost voS/k ik;s tkrs gS] rks vkidh fu;qfDr Loes; fujLr ekuh tkosxhA ,o a dk;Z vof/k dk Hkqxrku Hkh ns; ugh gksxhA**

¶198

Now what is to be consider is as to what transpired immediately before

¶199

the issuance of the impugned show cause notice which in the instant case was a notice issued to each of the petitioners granting them an opportunity of personal hearing and also to give explanation to the alleged misconduct. It

¶200

is not a case where the petitioners were straight away issued with the impugned show cause notice.

¶201

It would also be relevant at this juncture to refer to the contents of the

¶202

impugned show cause notice. The relevant portion of the impugned show

¶203

cause notice to show that the petitioners were granted reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing and defense would stand established from the following contents.

¶204

¶205

^^ftldh lquokbZ gsrq bl dk;kZy; dk i= dzek a d 148@f'k-d-u-@f'k-@09 iksMhmijksMk 14-05-2009 ds } kjk le{k es a lquokbZ gsrq fnuk a d 25-05-2009 dks le; 10-30 cts mifLFkr gksus gsrq lwpuk tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA izek.k i= dh lR;rk izekf.kr djus gsrq vkidks volj fn;k x;k] ijUrq vki volj fn;s tkus ds ckn Hkh ewy vfHkys[k ,o a vkids }kjk iznRr izek.k i= dh lR;rk izekf.kr djus es a vlQy jgs gSA**

¶206

In addition to the aforesaid averment it is also relevant to take note of

¶207

the operative part of the impugned show cause notice in the present case. For ready reference it is reproduced herein under:-

¶208

^^vr% bl l a c a /k es a ;fn vkidks dqN dguk gS rks

¶209

fnuk a d 22-09-2009 rd viuk Bksl tokc lizek.k ewy vfHkys[k ,o a izFke fu;qfDr dh ewy vkns'k ds lkFk bl dk;kZy; es a vfuok;Zr% izLrqr djsA ;fn mDr frfFk rd vkidk tokc izkIr ugh gksrk gS] rks ;g le>k tkosxk fd vkidks dqN ugh a dguk gS vkSj mDr vkjksi dks vki Lohdkj djrs gS a ,o a mDr frfFk ds i'pkr vkidh lsok, a rRdky lekIr dj nh tkosxh] ftlds fy, vki Lor% ftEesnkj gks a xsA**

¶210

The contents of the aforesaid impugned notice establishes the fact that on an earlier occasion on 14/05/2009 Annexure-R/1 was issued to the petitioners seeking their explanation as well as defense.

¶211

At this juncture it would also be relevant to take note of the contents of the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioners on 14/05/2009 which for ready reference is been reproduced herein under:-

¶212

¶213

^^izek.k&i= tks vkosnu i= es a l a yXu dj izLrqr fd;k x;k og l a fnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA pw a fd vuqHko es a v a d gksus ds dkj.k gh p;u gqvk gSA vr% ;g p;u izFke n`”V;k xyr izrhr gksrk gSA D;ks a u vkidh lsok, lekIr dj nh tkosA bl l a c a /k es a vki viuk izR;qRrj leLr ewy nLrkost ds lkFk Lo; a mifLFkr gksdj izLrqr djs a A

¶214

blds l a c a /k es a ys[k gS fd ewy vfHkys[k ds lkFk O;fDr'k% lquokbZ gsrq tuin i a pk;r dk;kZy; es a fnuk a d 25-05-2009 le;------vfuok;Zr% mifLFkr gksos a A**

¶215

Given the aforesaid conditions now what has to be seen is whether the

¶216

action on part of the respondents could be termed as post decisional hearing or not.

¶217

Under the common parlance a post decisional hearing means an approach of authority with a closed mind or where the decision has already been taken and that there is very little or no chance of getting any reconsideration on the reply to the impugned notice. The contents which – have been reproduced from the impugned show cause notice AnnexureP/1 as also from the first explanation sought vide Annexure-R/1 it clearly reflects that the respondent No.3 had been requesting the petitioners for producing strong cogent proof and the original certificate which itself means that if the petitioners do have the original certificates or cogent evidence with

¶218

them they can still produce the same before the authorities for consideration by way of reply supported with relevant records.

¶219

Merely because the authorities have in the impugned notice expressed

¶220

their opinion of having decided to terminate the services of the petitioners

¶221

¶222

would by itself not amount to post decisional hearing as the petitioners on an earlier occasion have been granted an opportunity of hearing and even vide the impugned notice they have still been called upon to produce any substantial material that they have in their possession to disprove the allegation or the charge of having obtained employment on the basis of fake experience certificate.

¶223

Though, under a different context i.e. in a context of getting employment

¶224

on the basis of a false caste certificate but ultimately the view expressed was in respect of a person obtaining employment by unfair means, the Supreme Court in paragraph 56 of its judgment in case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others, 2017 (8) SCC 670, held as under :

¶225

“ 56. Service under the Union and the States, or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State subserves a public purpose. These services are instruments of governance. Where the State embarks upon public employment, it is under the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 to follow the principle of equal opportunity. Affirmative action in our Constitution is part of the quest for substantive equality. Available resources and the opportunities provided in the form of public employment are in contemporary times short of demands and needs. Hence the procedure for selection, and the prescription of eligibility criteria has a significant public element in enabling the State to make a choice amongst competing claims. The selection of ineligible persons is a

¶226

¶227

manifestation of a systemic failure and has a deleterious effect on good governance. Firstly, selection of a person who is not eligible allows someone who is ineligible to gain access to scarce public resources. Secondly, the rights of eligible persons are violated since a person who is not eligible for the post is selected. Thirdly, an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing benefits upon an imposter undeservingly. These effects upon good governance find a similar echo when a person who PART A does not belong to a reserved category passes of as a member of that category and obtains admission to an educational institution. Those for whom the Constitution has made special provisions are as a result ousted when an imposter who does not belong to a reserved category is selected. The fraud on the constitution precisely lies in this. Such a consequence must be avoided and stringent steps be taken by the Court to ensure that unjust claims of imposters are not protected in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142. The nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital institutional role in preserving the rule of law. The judicial process should not be allowed to be utilised to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the benefits which have accrued to an imposter on the specious plea of equity ”

¶228

Again, under similar circumstances in respect of an issue relating to obtaining admission to the MBBS course on the basis of false certificate, the

¶229

¶230

Supreme Court in case of Nidhi Kaim & Another Vs. State of Madhya

¶231

Pradesh & Others, 2017 (4) SCC 1, in paragraph 92 has held as under :

¶232

“ 92 … We are of the considered view that conferring rights or

¶233

benefits on the appellants, who had consciously participated in a well thought out, and meticulously orchestrated plan, to circumvent well laid down norms, for gaining admission to the MBBS course, would amount to espousing the cause of the “ unfair ” . It would seem like allowing a thief to retain the stolen property. It would seem as if the Court was not supportive of the cause of those who had adopted and followed rightful means. ”

¶234

Taking into consideration the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments undoubtedly the Supreme Court was of the clear view that once when it is reached to the conclusion that the very basis of appointment itself being bad, the petitioners or the said employees as such would not be entitled for any equity based relief, nor would they be entitled for any sort of sympathy on account of length of service that they have put

¶235

in.

¶236

Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, as also the legal position which stands discussed in the preceding paragraph, this court is of the opinion that the show cause notice under challenge in these writ petitions cannot be said to be a case of post decisional hearing for the reason that admittedly the petitioners in the past were issued with a show cause notice. That, it is only much after granting the petitioners an opportunity of defence and which they have also availed by filing reply though without any

¶237

¶238

substantial piece of evidence or document to support their contentions and the reply being unsatisfactory, the second show cause notice was issued by

¶239

way of the impugned notice.

¶240

Thus, all the writ petitions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed.

¶241

As a consequence, the interim relief also stands vacated.

¶242

Needless to mention that so far as the petitioner in WPS No. 5446 of 2009 is concerned, the petitioner had furnished a certificate with signatures of an officer who was not working on the particular place on the said date of issuance as is evident from the contents of the show cause notice itself and there was nothing to rebut the contention which have been raised in the show cause notice issued.

¶243

Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, it is observed that in the event if the petitioners submit their reply to the impugned notice, the authorities would give due weightage to the contentions raised therein and shall also consider any documents which they

¶244

submit, if any.

¶245

Sd/-

¶246

(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

¶247

Sumit

Shailendri Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendri Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Rinita Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Nan Kumari Sahu Vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and Ors.

Smt. Sushmadas Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Omprakash Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sushama Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.