Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

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

Similar News