Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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