Forgery In Public Office Strikes At Governance Integrity, No Sympathy For Breach Of Trust: Allahabad High Court Upholds Dismissal Of KDA Clerk In ₹600 Lakh Fraud

“High Court Declares—Employee Endorsing Inquiry Fairness Cannot Later Cry Injustice”, In a significant judgment Allahabad High Court decisively upheld the dismissal of Kanchan Kumar Gupta, a clerk with the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA), who was accused of orchestrating fraudulent sale deed registrations causing colossal financial loss to the public exchequer. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, rejecting the plea of procedural violation and denial of natural justice, held that “where the accused employee himself acknowledges procedural fairness and foregoes further inquiry, courts are not to entertain belated grievances.”

This case, marked by grave allegations of forgery and defrauding a statutory authority to the tune of ₹600 lakhs, reinforces the judiciary’s stern stance against white-collar misconduct within public institutions.

The Court opened its judgment by affirming the principle that “in writ jurisdiction, the High Court is not an appellate authority to re-evaluate factual findings of departmental inquiries,” emphasizing that its role is limited to checking for procedural irregularity, bias, or perversion in findings.

The petitioner, who joined KDA in 1990 and rose to the rank of Grade-I clerk, was dismissed after charges of collusion in preparing forged documents and facilitating illegal registrations of prime properties in Kanpur. An earlier dismissal order was set aside by the appellate authority with a directive to re-consider the petitioner’s detailed reply and ensure adherence to natural justice. The disciplinary authority, following these directions, served fresh notice, supplied documents, provided personal hearing, and reissued the dismissal order, which was now under challenge.

Rejecting the core argument of denial of natural justice, the Court referred to the petitioner’s own written endorsement before the disciplinary authority, where he unequivocally stated, “I have submitted all facts and documents through my written replies dated 4.10.2021 and 30.04.2024, and I do not seek any further hearing.” The Court noted that “having voluntarily opted out of further hearing after expressing satisfaction, the petitioner is estopped from alleging any breach of natural justice.”

Justice Shamshery further fortified his conclusion by referring to established Supreme Court precedents, noting that “High Court interference under Article 226 is limited to cases of procedural irregularity, mala fides, or conclusions so perverse that no reasonable authority could have arrived at them.” The Court placed reliance on the classic dictum from State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, reiterating, “The High Court is not a court of appeal over the findings of departmental authorities when the findings are based on evidence.”

The Court refused to entertain the argument that absence of oral witnesses invalidated the inquiry. It observed, “It is a well-settled proposition that oral evidence is required only when the facts warrant it; in cases where documentary evidence suffices, oral hearings are not mandatory, especially when the delinquent employee participates and expresses satisfaction with the process.”

On examining the disciplinary findings, the Court recorded that “the impugned order is a meticulous charge-wise assessment which establishes, through documentary evidence, that the petitioner knowingly processed fake records to facilitate illegal property transfers to unauthorized persons.”

It rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the precedent of Kaptan Singh’s case, clarifying that “Kaptan Singh applies to cases of complete denial of inquiry; here, by his own admission, the petitioner was afforded full opportunity and had acknowledged procedural compliance.”

Concluding that the misconduct involved “forgery, manipulation of official records, breach of public trust, and massive financial loss,” the Court observed, “Punishment of dismissal is not just justified, but imperative, to mintain the sanctity of public administration.”

The Court ended its judgment with a pointed observation: “Public servants are custodians of public resources; betrayal of this trust, especially involving manipulation of public records and embezzlement of funds, must be met with uncompromising strictness.”

With this, the writ petition was dismissed, sending a clear message that the judiciary will not shield public employees from the consequences of serious misconduct simply under the guise of procedural technicalities when fair opportunity has been granted.

Date of Decision: 16th July 2025