Judgment : The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, the respondent herein, issued a notification, dated 03.09.1996, inviting applications for selection of candidate to the post of Lab Technicician Grade-II in Devasthanam Hospital, by way of direct recruitment. The qualifications stipulated for the post are that a candidate must have passed intermediate examination and must possess a certificate in Laboratory Technician course by a recognised institute. The petitioner submitted her application enclosing a Laboratory Technician certificate (for short ‘the certificate’) issued by “Rami Educational Academy”. She was selected against a vacancy reserved in favour of Scheduled Tribe category. An order of appointment was issued in the year1996 and her services were also regularised. Vide proceedings, dated 22.02.2005, she has been appointed against a Special Grade Post. 2. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 23.01.2011, alleging that the certificate produced by her is not genuine and the institution which issued it was not recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, at the relevant point of time. The petitioner submitted her explanation, stating that the institution was recognised by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 and believing the same to be correct, she studied in that institution and obtained certificate. She pleaded that the disciplinary proceedings are unwarranted, at a time when she has completed 15 years of service. Other grounds were also pleaded. The respondent terminated the services of the petitioner, through proceedings dated 24.06.2011. 3. This writ petition is filed challenging the said proceedings. The petitioner contends that thorough verification was made by the respondent, when appointment to the post of Lab Technician was made and that it is not at all open to them to terminate her services, at this stage. She further states that no disciplinary enquiry was conducted, before the order of termination was passed. 4. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that on coming to know that the institute from which the petitioner obtained the certificate was not recognised, a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner did not dispute the said fact. According to them, the necessity to conduct disciplinary enquiry did not exist, since the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the said institution did not have the recognition, when it issued certificate to her. According to them, the necessity to conduct disciplinary enquiry did not exist, since the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the said institution did not have the recognition, when it issued certificate to her. Placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, they contend that when the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification when she was appointed, she does not have any right to continue in service. 5. Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client was under bona fide belief that the institution in which she studied had recognition, and that the respondent also did not express any doubt as to the genuinity of the certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of selection and appointment. He contends that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the fraud played by the institution, and that the respondent ought not to have terminated the services of the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order is vitiated on account of the fact that it is not preceded by any departmental enquiry. 6. Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the institution in which the petitioner claims to have studied has gone to the extent of fabricating the Government Order to the effect that it was recognised by the Government. He contends that though the petitioner may not have been responsible for the fraud played by the institution, being the beneficiary of the fraud, she cannot claim any rights, on the basis of appointment, which was void ab initio. 7. The selection and appointment to the post of Lab Technician was undertaken in the year 1996 and the petitioner was selected and appointed against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. One of the essential requirements was that a candidate must possess certificate issued by an institution, recognised by the Government. The petitioner produced the certificate issued by “Rami Educational Academy”, Hyderabad. The petitioner has put in, almost one and half decades of service. 8. The occasion to verify the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner arose in the light of the scrutiny undertaken by the respondent into the claim made by Sri T.Narayanaswamy, M.N.O., appointed by them. The petitioner produced the certificate issued by “Rami Educational Academy”, Hyderabad. The petitioner has put in, almost one and half decades of service. 8. The occasion to verify the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner arose in the light of the scrutiny undertaken by the respondent into the claim made by Sri T.Narayanaswamy, M.N.O., appointed by them. That gentlemen made a representation in 21.07.2003 to the respondent requesting that his case be considered for promotion, on the basis of certificate, obtained by him, from Rami Educational Academy. The respondent has undertaken correspondence with the authorities in the medical and health department of the Government of A.P., as to the genuineness of the certificate. It emerged that Rami Educational Academy was not recognised by the Government at all. Accordingly, the respondent rejected the case. On receiving this reply, T.Narayanaswamy, sought to make out a point stating that the petitioner herein was appointed as Lab Technician on the basis of a certificate issued by the same institution. Obviously, he wanted similar treatment. That led to the verification of the genuinity of the certificates submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, a show cause notice/charge sheet was issued. 9. The charge framed against the petitioner read as under: “That the said Smt.T.Chittemma, Secured an appointment in TTD Hospitals as a Lab-Technician Gr.II by producing bogus Laboratory Technician Certificate issued by “Tami Educational Academy”, Hyderabad, (which was clarified by the Principal Secretary to Government, Health Medical and Family Welfare (VCIII.2) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, in Memo No.6176/VCIII (2)/2003, Dt.09.01.2009) and got appointed in T.T.D. as Lab Technician Grade-II, thereby cheated the management and exhibited her grave misconduct as per Memo.No.261/Ser.C/93 Dt.16.6.1993.” 10. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. She did not dispute the fact that the institution was not recognised and that a fake G.O. was brought into existence. Her plea was that she believed the G.O., to be true and genuine, and that she did not have the capacity to enquire whether the institution was genuine or not. She has also stated that she has put in 15 years of service and that she is prepared to undergo the training for the course afresh and to obtain a certificate. Another contention advanced by her was that the matter pertaining to the functioning of the said institution was under investigation by CBCID and that she cannot be punished. She has also stated that she has put in 15 years of service and that she is prepared to undergo the training for the course afresh and to obtain a certificate. Another contention advanced by her was that the matter pertaining to the functioning of the said institution was under investigation by CBCID and that she cannot be punished. She has also pleaded the ground of estoppel against the respondent. The respondent passed the impugned order, taking note of various facts. 11. Broadly stated, the petitioner pleaded that, a) she was not aware of the non-existence of recognition in favour of the institution; b) the impugned order is illegal, since the respondent failed to conduct disciplinary enquiry; and that c) the respondent is estopped from doubting the genuineness of the certificate. 12. The recruitment rules are clear to the effect that a candidate for the post of Lab Technician must possess Laboratory Technician Certificate, issued by a recognised institution. The petitioner studied in an institution, by name “Rami Educational Academy”. The relevant facts as to how and when the institution came into existence are not immediately available. Even according to the petitioner, she was informed by the said institution that it was recognised by the Government through orders in G.O.Ms.No.1073, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 13.10.1983 and that the Government issued memo, dated 27.10.1985 certifying the existence of recognition. In the course of enquiry into the genuinity of the certificates issued by the said institution, it emerged that the Government did not issue G.O.Ms.No.1073 dated 13.10.1983 at all, much less the memo, dated 09.01.2004. It means that the institution has gone to the extent of creating and fabricating Government Orders and deceiving gullible students. Though the petitioner may not have been a party to the fraud, it cannot be ignored that the certificate obtained by her is nothing but the result of fraud. Being the beneficiary of the fraudulent exercise undertaken by the institution, the petitioner cannot plead that she must be treated in isolation. It is well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates everything and no beneficiary of fraud can plead equitable or legal ground to retain the benefit of fraud. It makes little difference whether the petitioner was aware or ignorant about the illegality committed by the institution. 13. It is well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates everything and no beneficiary of fraud can plead equitable or legal ground to retain the benefit of fraud. It makes little difference whether the petitioner was aware or ignorant about the illegality committed by the institution. 13. The second ground is about the failure on the part of the respondent in conducting departmental enquiry. It is true that the relevant service rules mandate that the respondent shall conduct departmental enquiry before inflicting a major punishment upon an employee and that such an enquiry was not held in this case. However, it is fundamental that the necessity to appoint an enquiry officer and to hold departmental enquiry would arose, if only the employee denies the charge. If the charge or the gravamen of it, is admitted, the necessity to conduct enquiry is obviated. Various grounds, which the employee may plead independent of the principal cause, can, at the most be treated as extenuating circumstances. That, however, is purely in the realm of discretion of disciplinary authority and the departmental proceedings have no role to play in this regard. 14. The petitioner did not even say that G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 was genuine. She has only stated that the representation made by the institution, was believed by her and that the G.O. was taken as genuine. Having said that the petitioner pleaded that since the certificate was verified at the time of selection and that at this length of time, she may not be penalised for the fraud played by the institution. Once the prime charge against the petitioner was not denied, there was no requirement in law to conduct departmental enquiry. Therefore, the proceedings are not vitiated, in as much as the respondent was not under obligation to conduct departmental enquiry. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee AIR 1980 SC 840 . The facts of the present case are totally distinguishable from those of the said case. In that case, the employee was accused of committing theft of the property owned by the employer, misappropriation of stocks, and commission of other irregularities. The facts of the present case are totally distinguishable from those of the said case. In that case, the employee was accused of committing theft of the property owned by the employer, misappropriation of stocks, and commission of other irregularities. In reply to a charge memo, the employee denied the charges, and in fact, he requested for an opportunity to cross-examine the persons, who are said to have complained against him. Neither such an opportunity was given, nor an enquiry was conducted. The Supreme Court held that an order passed against the employee was in breach of principles of natural justice. Such is not the case here. The petitioner was issued a charge memo pointing out the allegation and she did not dispute the fact that the institution from which she obtained certificate did not have the recognition, at the relevant point of time. 16. Finally, the petitioner pleaded the ground of estoppel against the respondent. In a way, that amounts to begging the question. When the respondent believed the statement of the petitioner, as to the genuinity of the certificate and that the basic verification, did not point out anything adverse, the principle of estoppel cannot be applied against the respondent, when it was ultimately established that the institution where the petitioner studied, fabricated the Government Orders and conducted the course without there being any recognition. The principle could have been invoked, if only the respondent was aware of the fraud or illegality and still appointed the petitioner on the basis of the certificate. It has already been mentioned that once fraud is pleaded and established, law would annul everything that, is derived from it, whatever be the acts and omissions on the part of the persons, who received the benefit thereof. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.