ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant Lineman on 13.08.2015. On 27.04.2018, respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice. In the show cause notice, it is stated that as per the order dated 12.08.2015, the petitioner was intimated of his selection as Assistant Lineman and that as per the Official Memorandum intimating his appointment, he was required to submit certain certificates viz., birth certificate, SSLC marks card, an affidavit and his cumulative record. 3. That the petitioner reported to duty on 13.08.2015 and while so reporting, in compliance with the stipulations under the Official Memorandum, he has submitted certain certificates and one amongst them being the ITI marks card. That the same was referred for authentication to the concerned authorities viz., the Commissioner, Employment & Training Department. By endorsement dated 16.04.2018, the Commissioner intimated the respondentauthorities that the marks in the ITI marks card submitted by the petitioner and the marks entered in the original records are different and that the name of the petitioner is also not found in the approved list of students. That the marks card is a fabricated one, and hence, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why action should not be initiated as per the last condition imposed in the Official Memorandum, whereby the selected candidate was intimated that in the event of the certificates submitted by him being found to be either false or fabricated, he would be removed from the employment without any further notice. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would file a memo into the Court enclosing therewith the copy of the complaint lodged by the Commissioner of Employment & Training Department and would invite the attention of the Court to Page 9 and submit that even as per the complaint, the mischief is committed by the officers of the Commissionerate by manipulating the database and that for the mischief committed by the employees of the Commissionerate, the petitioner should not be victimized. That the petitioner has no access to the database, hence, no allegations of fabrication of forgery or concoction of records or alteration of entries can be leveled against the petitioner. That the petitioner has no access to the database, hence, no allegations of fabrication of forgery or concoction of records or alteration of entries can be leveled against the petitioner. No doubt, the submission on behalf of the petitioner that he had no access to the database or that the alteration of marks was carried out by the employees under the complainant may be true, but the beneficiary of such a fraud is the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to demonstrate to the Court that he had validly undergone the course, taken the exams and obtained marks as reflected in the marks card submitted by him to the employer. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. Though the information by the Commissioner has been furnished way back on 16.04.2018 and the same has been put to him on 27.04.2018, the petitioner has no answer to any of the queries putforth by this Court. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would simply plead innocence. He would contend that the petitioner hails from rural background. That would not in any manner mitigate the fraud that has been perpetuated. The Commissioner for Employment & Training has clearly opined that even the name of the petitioner is not found in the list of candidates, implying thereby that the petitioner has not undergone the course at all. If that be the inference one could draw, then the said fact by itself would corroborate the allegation against the petitioner that the marks card is concocted one and fabricated and the burden would shift on to the petitioner to prima facie demonstrate that he had atleast undergone the course in a recognized institute and has taken up the examinations. 7. There is no material placed before the Court to demonstrate any of the above. It is apparent that fraud has been perpetuated even as per the Department and as a result of the fraud, the database has been tampered and the marks have been doctored and altered and the doctored marks sheet has been submitted by the petitioner who inturn has placed it before the respondent-employer. The respondent-employer, placing reliance on the fabricated marks card has given him employment. The respondent-employer, placing reliance on the fabricated marks card has given him employment. Pursuant to the verification process undertaken by the employer, the authorities have opined that the marks card is a fabricated one and pursuant to the same, the petitioner-employee has been issued with the show cause notice and thereafter the order of termination has been passed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Regulation 11 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987, the respondent-employer is required to conduct enquiry and thereafter pass the order imposing punishment. The said argument requires to be rejected in the light of the fact that what is alleged against the petitioner is an act of fraud on the employer at the time of his gaining entry into the service of the respondent-company. There is no denying the fact that the employment order is a conditional one, whereby the petitioner was required to produce the documents demonstrating the qualifications as stipulated by the employer and further the appointment was subject to the condition that the documents so furnished by him if found to be fabricated or concocted, the order of employment is liable to be revoked without notice to him. The Apex Court, in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS RAJENDRA SINGH & OTHERS – ILR 2000 KAR 1929, , while dealing with the issue of fraud, observed in paragraph 3 as under: “3. “Fraud and justice never dwell together.” (Frans etjus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that “no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything”. LAZARUS ESTAE LTD. VS BEASLEY.” Further, the Apex Court has placed reliance on its own ruling, in paragraphs 14 & 15 as under: “14. In S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS. VS JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS. the two Judges Bench of this Court held: “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is nullity and non est in the eyes of law. the two Judges Bench of this Court held: “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/ decree by the first Court or by the highest Court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings. …………” 15. In INDIAN BANK VS SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. another two Judges bench, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus: “Singh fraud effects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practiced upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order.”” 9. The issue is no more res integra. It is settled position in law that an act of fraud vitiates every solemn act. The act that is complained of against the petitioner is that he has practiced fraud on the employer by producing documents which upon verification are found to be fabricated ones. If that be the position, and if the said order removing him from employment is set aside by placing reliance on the Regulations, more particularly Regulation 11, it would amount to placing a premium on the act of alleged fraud complained of against the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has consented for the summary dismissal by accepting the condition imposed under the order of employment. If such acts of fraud in matters of public employment are condoned by the courts, it would only encourage fraudsters to perpetuate fraud with impunity. The petitioner has neither satisfied the authorities or this Court regarding the genuineness of the certificates submitted by him at the time of gaining the employment. Technicalities cannot be permitted to defeat the object of the courts i.e., ensuring and rendering complete justice. 10. The petitioner has neither satisfied the authorities or this Court regarding the genuineness of the certificates submitted by him at the time of gaining the employment. Technicalities cannot be permitted to defeat the object of the courts i.e., ensuring and rendering complete justice. 10. As stated supra, the petitioner has failed to reply to the show cause notice and further having failed to convince this Court with regard to the genuineness of the documents, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out the case warranting interference with the order dismissing him from service. 11. Be that as it may, it shall be open to the petitioner to impugn the opinion/endorsement issued by the Department of Employment & Training and in the event of the same being set aside by the competent court, or if a finding is rendered holding the document to be genuine or true and correct, it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondent-Corporation for reinstatement or approach this Court for review. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are for the purpose of disposing off the instant petition and shall not be construed as having rendered a finding on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. It is open for the authorities or the courts to independently assess and take a decision in the event they are so required to do. With the above observations, the petition stands dismissed.