“Fraud Vitiates All”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Appointment Void Ab Initio for Assistant Lineman Who Used Fake ITI Certificate

“No Man Can Take Advantage of His Own Wrong” — Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a strong-worded and precedent-backed judgment, denying relief to a petitioner who sought reinstatement into public service despite his appointment having been based on a forged Industrial Training Institute certificate. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that employment secured through fraudulent means is void ab initio, and no procedural safeguard or estoppel can protect such an appointment.

“Once the Foundation is Removed, the Structure Falls” — High Court Quotes Legal Maxim to Reinforce that Fraud Nullifies Employment

The judgment opens by affirming a foundational principle of law: “sublato fundamento cadit opus”, translated as “once the foundation is removed, the structure falls.” The Court asserted that a forged document used to gain employment becomes the corrupt foundation that collapses the entire appointment.

Petitioner Served 10 Years Based on Fake Certificate, Then Claimed Protection Under Service Rules — Court Dismantles the Argument

The case arose when Kuldeep, who had been appointed as an Assistant Lineman in DHBVNL on 26 October 2012, challenged his termination dated 17 March 2023. His certificate was verified afresh after an RTI activist triggered a review of employee credentials. The Principal of Government ITI, Kanpur, confirmed in writing that the certificate Kuldeep used had never been issued by the institute.

In response, DHBVNL terminated his employment, stating: “The technical certificates submitted by Sh. Kuldeep S/o Sh. Tek Chand are invalid / Not Genuine. Hence not fulfilled the prescribed technical qualification... making him ineligible/unfit.”

Kuldeep argued that his documents were earlier verified during his probation and claimed that his dismissal was contrary to Clause 7 of the DHBVNL Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2006 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which provide protection against dismissal without an inquiry.

The Court decisively rejected this argument: “Since the petitioner obtained employment on the basis of a forged and fabricated certificate, he cannot take shelter of the prescribed procedure to escape accountability as fraud vitiates all.”

“Fraud Unravels Everything”: High Court Backs Verdict With Supreme Court Precedents

Justice Brar extensively cited binding precedents from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 748, Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319, and R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 105, reinforcing the legal principle that appointments obtained through misrepresentation or deceit are void from the beginning.

The Court quoted from Jainendra Singh: “Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer... merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.”

The Court went further to include the classic dictum from the UK’s Lazarus Estates v. Beasley:

“No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud... Fraud unravels everything.”

“Public Employment Is Not a Bastion for Fraudsters” — Court Slams Both Employee and Department for Complicity and Laxity

In a sobering reminder of the sanctity of public employment, the Court noted: “Public employment opportunities are both rare and highly coveted... it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the recruitment process remains sacrosanct, free from evils of arbitrariness and laxity.”

Justice Brar didn’t limit his criticism to the petitioner alone. The judgment also reprimanded DHBVNL’s internal verification process, holding it partly responsible for the wrongful appointment:

“Clearly, it was due to the laxity displayed by the concerned employee that the appointment of the petitioner went through in spite of his lack of requisite qualifications.”

As a corrective measure, the Court issued a binding directive: “The Managing Director of the respondent-Nigam is directed to fix responsibility of the employee in-charge of the verification process... and take appropriate disciplinary action... A compliance report in this regard be filed with the Registry within 08 weeks.”

“No Estoppel, No Equity for the Fraudulent Employee”: Court Refuses to Extend Any Benefit for 10 Years of Service

While the petitioner served for over a decade and received salaries, the Court made it abundantly clear that no statutory entitlement flows from an appointment rooted in forgery, observing:

“Such fraud denies rightful candidates the opportunity of public employment and is ultimately sponsored by the taxpayer.”

The Court warned that any judicial leniency toward such misconduct would result in eroding public trust and undermining the integrity of the system.

Date of Decision: 03.09.2025