Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Raj. High Court Upholds Termination of Teacher on Grounds of Fraudulent Conduct – “Fraud Avoids All Judicial Acts”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, upheld the termination of a petitioner’s services in a civil writ petition, highlighting the consequences of fraudulent conduct in obtaining employment. The judgment, delivered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, emphasized the principle that “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal,” and denied the petitioner’s claim to continue in service.

The petitioner, Rohitashwa Kumar, a former teacher, faced criminal charges that led to his conviction under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Rather than disclosing this critical information to the department, Kumar suppressed the facts and falsely obtained extraordinary leaves on the pretext of family emergencies. In a bid to further mislead authorities, he falsely claimed acquittal in his appeal against the conviction.

Taking cognizance of Kumar’s fraudulent actions, the departmental proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1958, were dropped, and his application for voluntary retirement was initially accepted. However, when the truth came to light, the voluntary retirement order was withdrawn, and the petitioner’s services were terminated based on Rule 19 of the CCA Rules 1958.

Justice Dhand asserted, “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruit and benefit those who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves.” The court highlighted the significance of trust and integrity, particularly in uniformed services, and ruled that fraudulent conduct could not be tolerated.

The judgment, drawing on the legal maxim “Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria” (No one should benefit from their own wrongdoing), emphasized that the termination was justified, given Kumar’s deceitful actions and the impact on trustworthiness in the workplace.

The ruling serves as a reminder to employees and job seekers that fraudulent actions in obtaining employment can have severe consequences, including termination from service. Employers retain the right to assess credibility and trustworthiness, and employees must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity in their professional endeavors.

Date of Decision: 11.07.2023

Rohitashwa Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

Latest Legal News