Acceptance Of Qualifications At Time Of Appointment Can't be Questioned After 30 Years, Unless Fraud Is Alleged:MP High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Jain partially allowed a writ petition challenging an inquiry into a disability certificate submitted for employment three decades ago. The court held that while authorities can investigate allegations of forgery, they cannot question the acceptability of qualifications that were accepted at the time of appointment after...
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Jain partially allowed a writ petition challenging an inquiry into a disability certificate submitted for employment three decades ago. The court held that while authorities can investigate allegations of forgery, they cannot question the acceptability of qualifications that were accepted at the time of appointment after such a significant time lapse, particularly when there are no specific allegations of fraud.
Background
An order dated 20/12/2023 by the Additional Collector, District Balaghat, initiated a fact-finding inquiry into an allegedly forged disability certificate produced by Dharamdas Bhalekar, at the time of his service entry in 1993. The inquiry was initiated based on a complaint suggesting that the petitioner only had 15% temporary disability at the time of appointment, rather than the required permanent disability of at least 40% under the Persons With Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act 1995. The petitioner challenged the enquiry.
Arguments
Firstly, the petitioner argued that the State authorities could not investigate a certificate submitted 30 years ago, especially when he had completed 80% of his service tenure and was approaching retirement. Secondly, he contended that the inquiry was motivated by malice, as he had filed multiple complaints against Respondent No. 6, an Assistant Commissioner in the Department who was facing prosecution based on the petitioner's complaints. Additionally, he argued that the complainant, Dharmendra Lilhare (Respondent No. 7), was non-existent, and the complaints were anonymous, orchestrated by Respondent No. 6.
The State vehemently opposed the petition, arguing that if an appointment was obtained through fraud and forged certificates, the passage of time was immaterial. They contended that any malice on the complainant's part was irrelevant if the appointment itself was wrongfully procured. The State relied on the established legal principle that fraud vitiates everything.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, examining the complaint's contents, the court observed that it did not allege the certificate was forged or manufactured, but rather claimed it showed only 15% temporary disability. The court emphasized the crucial distinction between accepting an unacceptable certificate and dealing with a forged certificate. The court noted that the complainant had not alleged the petitioner lacked even the 15% temporary disability mentioned in the certificate, nor claimed the certificate was never issued. These omissions were significant as they indicated no clear allegations of fraud or forgery.
The State authorities had appointed the petitioner in 1993 “with open eyes,” having full knowledge of the certificate showing 15% temporary disability. The court noted that this was not a case of suppression or misrepresentation of facts, but of oversight. Further, the court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Shri Krishan vs The Kurukshetra University (AIR 1976 SC 376) and Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610, which established that admissions, though illegal but not based on suppression or misrepresentation, should not be cancelled after significant time passage.
Additionally, the court also particularly relied on Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494, which held that errors not attributable to appointees and cases without fraud or misrepresentation should not result in termination after lengthy service periods. Thus, the court concluded that authorities cannot suddenly question their predecessors' acceptance of qualifications after 30 years, as “settled things cannot be allowed to be unsettled in this manner at drop of a hat”. However, recognizing the need to balance various interests, the court allowed an inquiry, but limited its scope strictly to investigating whether the disability certificate was genuinely issued by the appropriate authority. Thus, the petition was partially allowed, with the specific direction that if the certificate is found to be validly issued, no adverse action can be taken merely because the disability percentage was deemed unacceptable at the time of appointment.
Date: 25 October 2024
Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:54010
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 284
Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta
Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Manhar Dixit