At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme 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