Right Of Private Defence Not Available To Aggressors Who Create Situations Of Peril: Allahabad High Court National Security Concerns Outweigh Right To Bail In Espionage Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Relief To Navy Sailor Accused Of Spying For Pakistan Wives Are Not Deemed Maids, Marriage Is A Partnership Of Equals: Bombay High Court Rejects Household Chores As Ground For Cruelty Divorce Economic Offences Affect Financial Fabric Of Society; Custodial Interrogation May Be Necessary: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Anil Tuteja's Bail In Mahadev App Case Municipalities Are 'Persons' Under WB Highways Act; Can't Build On PWD Land Without Permission: Calcutta High Court Sale Of Secured Asset At Reserve Price Requires Borrower’s Consent; Authorised Officer Cannot Confirm Sale Unilaterally: Andhra Pradesh High Court Procedural Safeguards Mandatory Even In National Security Cases: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Over Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Compassionate Appointment Not A Ladder For Career Growth; Second Claim For Higher Post Not Permissible: Allahabad High Court High Court Can't Invoke Inherent Powers To Allow 'Backdoor Entry' For Second Revision Unless Gross Injustice Is Established: Delhi High Court Court Cannot Presume Unsound Mind Merely Because Of Hearing & Speech Disability; Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act: Technical Omission In Complaint Filed By POA Holder Cured If Original Complainant Testifies During Trial; Kerala High Court Direct Evidence Of Sexual Intercourse Not Always Possible; Circumstantial Evidence Of Proximity Sufficient To Prove Adultery: Madras High Court 21 Years Service Is Not Temporary: Orissa HC Directs Regularization Of Drivers, Says State Can’t Exploit Workers Through Perennial 'Ad-Hocism' Reinstatement Not Automatic For Section 25-F ID Act Violations; Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹1 Lakh Per Year Compensation To Superannuated Workman Section 82 CrPC Requirements Mandatory; Order Declaring Person Proclaimed Vitiated If Fresh Proclamation Not Issued Upon Adjournment: Punjab & Haryana HC Stay On Blacklisting Order Does Not Efface Underlying Fact; Bidder Must Make Candid Disclosure: Delhi High Court

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