Petitioner sought reinstatement after criminal acquittal for charges related to a fake degree. Court dismissed writ petition, holding termination based on independent verification of a forged document remains valid regardless of subsequent criminal acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2112/2019
Jagdish Prasad Kangasia S/o Shri Fateh Chand Kangasia, aged about 52 Years, R/o Mochiyo Ka Kangasia, R/o Mochiyo Ka Chowk, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Kailash Jangid |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Sarvan Kumar,AGC |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order
28/09/2022
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected and appointed against the post of Senior Teacher (Maths) in the respondent-department w.e.f. 03.02.1992 on the basis of the qualifications and degree of Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) obtained from University of Gorakhpur. The petitioner joined service on the post of Teacher Grade-III at the allotted school on 05.02.1992. the services of the petitioner were terminated on the
(2 of 4) [CW-2112/2019]
ground that appointment was secured on the basis of a fake/ forged degree vide order dated 24.12.1993. An FIR No.392/1994 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Udai Mandir, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 471 & 120-B of IPC. The competent criminal court vide order dated 07.12.2016 issued acquittal from the charges leveled against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him for offences punishable under Section 420, 466, 471 & 120-B of IPC by the competent criminal court therefore, the very basis of the termination from services has become redundant. He submitted that petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case and since he has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him, he deserves to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Senior Teacher (Maths) on the basis of the B.Ed. degree obtained by him from University of Gorakhpur. Since the B.Ed. degree was obtained by the petitioner from a University situated outside Rajasthan, the same was, therefore sent for verification. The Registrar, University of Gorakhpur vide letter dated 22.04.1992 informed the department that the degree submitted by the petitioner has not been issued by the concerned university. The B.Ed. Degree submitted by the petitioner was thus, found to be a fake/ forged degree. The respondent-department in addition to termination of petitioner’s services, vide order dated 24.12.1993, lodged an FIR against him on 03.03.1994. Mere acquittal of
(3 of 4)
[CW-2112/2019]
petitioner from criminal case does not entitle the petitioner to be reinstated in service.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486 held as under:
“In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.”
Indisputably, the B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner from University of Gorakhpur was verified and found to be fake/ forged. The order of termination dated 24.12.1993, issued against the petitioner after the process of verification of degree was never challenged by the petitioner and has thus, attained finality. No direction for reinstatement of petitioner can be issued merely because he has been acquitted in the criminal case, as acquittal in no way makes the degree in question a valid one. It is a settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by way of fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide.
(4 of 4) [CW-2112/2019]
In the considered opinion of this Court, reinstatement after
the decision of acquittal or discharge by a competent criminal court arises only in the cases where order of termination/dismissal was issued solely on the basis of conviction recorded by criminal court. However, in the cases where termination/dismissal is based on an enquiry independent of criminal proceedings, acquittal in a criminal case is of no consequence.
In the result of the discussion, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merit.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
Ravi Khandelwal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee acquitted of criminal charges related to forgery entitled to reinstatement if termination was based on independent verification of a fake degree rather than criminal conviction.
Whether a B.Ed. degree found to be fake/forged by the university during verification can be relied upon for appointment even after criminal acquittal.
Whether acquittal in criminal proceedings constitutes a legal right to appointment obtained through fraud.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajendra D. HarmalkarRelied on¶26
2022 SCC OnLine SC 486 · Who else cites this
Jagdish Prasad Kangasia
State of Rajasthan
The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Zone
The Chief District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jalore
KULDEEP MATHUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
