Court Rules No Need for Full Departmental Inquiry When Foundational Fraud in Appointment is Established; Terminations Valid Despite Lengthy Service
In a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Allahabad High Court upheld the termination of several Assistant Teachers appointed on the basis of allegedly forged Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) 2013 certificates. The Court dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by the terminated teachers challenging their dismissal and the stoppage of salaries, affirming that appointments secured through fraudulent documents are void ab initio and do not require a formal departmental inquiry under service rules for termination.
The petitions, heard together by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, involved five teachers - Vivek Kumar, Ravindra Singh, Ajay Pratap Singh, Premlata, and Anupam Yadav - who were appointed as Assistant Teachers in upper-primary schools after qualifying the TET 2013 examination. They had served for several years, with their educational credentials initially verified and salaries paid accordingly.
However, following a Government order in July 2018 mandating a verification of appointments made after 2010, a district-level committee found discrepancies in the online records of the TET certificates produced by these petitioners. The roll numbers mentioned on their certificates could not be traced in the official database maintained by the Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh. This led to show-cause notices being issued to the petitioners, who denied the allegations and submitted detailed replies asserting the authenticity of their certificates.
Despite these submissions, the authorities stopped their salaries and terminated their services by orders dated June 13, 2022. The petitioners contended that they were not provided with a full departmental inquiry as mandated under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and that the termination violated principles of natural justice.
The High Court, after an exhaustive review of the facts and precedents, emphasized that where foundational fraud is conclusively established - i.e., the appointment is based on forged or fabricated documents - the appointment is void from the outset. As such, the termination is not a punitive action but a declaration that no lawful appointment ever existed. The Court clarified that in such circumstances, issuing a show-cause notice and providing a reasonable opportunity to respond suffices to meet the requirements of natural justice. A full departmental inquiry under the service rules is not mandatory.
The judgment drew upon a series of precedents including the Supreme Court's rulings in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, and multiple decisions by the Allahabad High Court itself, which consistently hold that no equity or right accrues to an individual who secures public employment through fraud, no matter how long the person has served or how satisfactorily the duties were performed. The Court also noted that the petitioners had been given an opportunity to have their original certificates examined by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents but chose not to pursue the process, which reinforced the conclusion of forgery.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners failed to produce any contemporaneous or authenticated documents to substantiate the genuineness of their TET certificates. Therefore, their continuation in service was untenable, and the impugned termination orders did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This ruling sends a clear message reinforcing the integrity of public service appointments and the sanctity of verification processes. It strengthens administrative powers to act decisively against fraudulent claims without being bogged down by protracted departmental inquiries when fraud is evident.
Bottom Line:
Termination of services based on forged TET certificates does not require a full-fledged departmental inquiry under service rules if foundational fraud is conclusively established.
Statutory provision(s):
Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2977111
