Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 671 (ALL)

Ghanshyam Verma v. State of U. P.

2023-03-07

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2023
JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. In the present case, there are allegations against petitioner (Ghanshyam Verma) that on his place his cousin Roop Narayan Verma has joined at concerned school on post of Assistant Teacher pasting his photo though educational documents were of petitioner. He was appointed in 1999 and got salary up to June 2002. 2. During inquiry, it was held that it was a forged appointment and by impugned order, appointment of petitioner was declared void-ab-initio. 3. During inquiry, it was further found that Roop Narayan Verma has opened a bank account in name of petitioner, by posting his photograph on application form, service book and bank opening form though all documents were in name of petitioner i.e. Ghanshyam Verma. It was also found that petitioner (Ghanshyam Verma) was working in Bharatpur (Rajasthan). Relevant documents were found missing. Relevant part of impugned order (passed in pursuance of order dated 12.09.2012 by this Court in Writ Petition filed by petitioner being No. 62613/2007) is quoted below: 4. Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that: (a) F.I.R. was lodged against petitioner on above allegations but after investigation, final report was submitted which was accepted by trial Court. Therefore, allegations levelled against the petitioner were found false. (b) Inquiry was initiated at the behest of letter of local M.L.A. with malafide intention. (c) Petitioner’s stand was heard by then Basic Education Officer, however, order was passed by new incumbent in haste as there was contempt proceeding initiated by the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent-3 has submitted that this Court has passed following order on 05.02.2020 which is as follows: “Pursuant to the order dated 29.01.2020 Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, has produced the original record. From perusal of the same, it appears that the photograph annexed on the application form is different from the photograph found during the verification done by Block Development Officer on 13.02.2002. Further, the photograph scanned on the records of Punjab National Bank is of the same person, which is there on the application form. Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that no such application was moved by the petitioner as there was no requirement for applying and the photographs alleged to be of Roop Narayan Verma is in fact the photograph of Ghanshyam Verma. Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that no such application was moved by the petitioner as there was no requirement for applying and the photographs alleged to be of Roop Narayan Verma is in fact the photograph of Ghanshyam Verma. Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, is directed to bring on record three documents, which he has relied on, through an affidavit alongwith service book of petitioner within a week. Put up this case in additional cause list on 13.02.2020. Original records are returned back to learned counsel for respondent no. 3.” 6. Learned counsel has further referred a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-3 and has placed reliance on following paragraphs thereof: “6. That during verification/enquiry Block Development Officer, Block Harraiya, District Basti attested the photograph of the real Ghanshyam Verma and this photograph has also verified by the Village Development Officer, Jagdishpur, A.D.O. Block Harraiya and Village Pradhan of Village Jagdishpur. The photograph of the real Ghanshyam Verma is entirely different to the photographs which have been pasted on the application for the appointment of Assistant Teacher, Service-Book and the Bank Account. The true photo copy of the attested photograph of real Ghanshyam Verma during verification is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-4 to this affidavit. 7. That the perusal of the application form for the appointment of Assistant Teacher, Service-Book and scanned copy of form for opening of the Bank Account for purposes of drawing the salary, the photograph of Roop Narayan Verma, who is cousin of petitioner, has been pasted and he has joined as Assistant Teacher and during enquiry/verification the photograph of petitioner has been attested by Block Development Officer, which is entirely different than those photographs, which makes it amply clear that fraud and misrepresentation has been played by the petitioner. 8. 8. That it is also pertinent to mention here that during enquiry the statement given by Hanuman Prasad, who was posted as Incharge Headmaster Primary School Nagpur Kuwar, Block Parashurampur, District Basti, clearly stated that the person whose photograph is annexed with the application form i.e. of Roop Narayan Verma, he has only joined in his School in the year 1999 and the photograph which has been attested by Block Development Officer has never worked in his school and both persons are different and same has been stated by Ram Naresh Verma husband of former Village Pradhan. 9. That, thus the law in the case of appointment obtained fraudulently is well settled, when the appointment or approval has been obtained by a person on the basis of forged document, it will amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. It would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer to cancel such appointment or approval since “fraud and justice never dwell together.” 7. Learned counsel has submitted that it a case of forgery and there is no illegality in impugned order. 8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioner has referred following paragraphs of rejoinder affidavit: “4. That in reply to of contents of Para 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit it is submitted that the petitioner was selected in Special B.T.C. Course 1998-99 and was sent for training of 1 months and thereafter was given posting on the basis of training certificate. Neither any application form was issued nor was it required for appointment nor the petitioner has ever put signature in the alleged application form and nor has he pasted his photograph. Annexure No. SCA-1 is procurement of the officials of Zila Basic Siksha Adhikari Basti in connivance of Ram Nasib, the complainant who is also husband of petitioner's sister and criminal case of dowry and torture and further case under section 125 Cr.P.C. is being contested wherein interim maintenance was awarded. Since complainant tried his best to put a pressure upon the petitioner for withdrawal of those cases and the petitioner refused therefore he with help of officials committed fraud on record against the petitioner in order to blackmail him. 5. That no appointment letter has been brought on record demonstrating this fact that appointment has been made on the basis of said application. Even said application does not bear the signature of petitioner. 5. That no appointment letter has been brought on record demonstrating this fact that appointment has been made on the basis of said application. Even said application does not bear the signature of petitioner. Any application without bearing signature of the applicant is meaningless and cannot be relied. 7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 4 of supplementary counter affidavit it is submitted that it is not an original service book. Service Book bears the details of service and only the cover page was produced by respondents before Hon'ble Court and same is brought with Supplementary Counter Affidavit. It is also a result of self manufactured documents procured by officials of Basic Sikhsa Adhikari working in connivance of Ram Nasib. The respondents ought to have brought complete original service book which would only establish the correct fact, joining, working and other entries arising out from service benefit etc. 8. That the contents of paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit are false and misconstrued hence vehemently denied and in reply to it, it is submitted that the bank has verified the photographs of the petitioner and his photographs was pasted on the same which is different from the records brought before Hon'ble Court. Certificate to this effect has also been issued by the bank and same is attached with writ petition. The petitioner is filing the copy of Passbook which will go to establish the fact that there is no dispute of photograph as photographs are only verified after physical appearance and if it was photographs of other in that event accounts could not have been allowed to operate. It is only petitioner and no one else who is operating the account. A photocopy of passbook is attached herewith as Annexure No. RA-1 to this affidavit. 9. It is only petitioner and no one else who is operating the account. A photocopy of passbook is attached herewith as Annexure No. RA-1 to this affidavit. 9. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 6 and 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is submitted that a photograph pasted in verification order dated 13.02.2002 is coloured photographs bearing moustache and the photographs pasted in Annexure No, SCA-1, 2 and 3 are black and white old photographs without any moustache but all the photograph are of petitioner and it appears that these photographs of early age were kept in album and the complainant had taken out these photographs and misused it in collusion with officials of Basic Sikhsa Adhikari after institution of criminal cases against complainant made by the petitioner's sister. Since the petitioner is the pairokar of Dowry, torture and maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and doing pairvee on behalf of his sister, therefore, complainant in order to harass to petitioner filed the complaint to blackmail the petitioner.” 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. There are very serious allegations against petitioner that he allowed his cousin Roop Narayan Verma to get appointment on post of Assistant Teacher on basis of his testimonials. In inquiry, allegations against petitioner were found true that in order to commit fraud, petitioner’s cousin Roop Narayan Verma pasted his photos in documents submitted at the time of selection i.e. application, bank account passbook, service book, etc. though these were in the name of petitioner Ghanshyam Verma. 11. By way of supplementary affidavit, details of inquiry have already been placed on record which include statement of relevant witnesses which has not been contradicted by petitioner. Person who had joined in school concerned was not petitioner rather he was his cousin. 12. Standard of proof in departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings are different and it is well settled that exoneration in criminal proceedings would itself not be a ground that department proceedings could not be continued or outcome of departmental inquiry was wrong. 13. It is well settled that “a witness may lie but documents do not” as reiterated in Furkan S.K. vs. State of West Bengal, 2015 SCC Online Cal 4611. 14. 13. It is well settled that “a witness may lie but documents do not” as reiterated in Furkan S.K. vs. State of West Bengal, 2015 SCC Online Cal 4611. 14. The last argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that concerned Basic Education Officer who passed order has not heard petitioner, however, same cannot be considered to be a legally sustainable argument since impugned order was passed on basis of material i.e. relevant documents and from averments made in writ petition or rejoinder affidavit, petitioner has failed to bring on record any document which could contradict findings returned by B.S.A. or that he was prejudiced by manner or process in which impugned order was passed. 15. In aforesaid circumstances, there are substantial material that the petitioner has allowed his cousin to use his educational testimonials and other documents and served in his name. 16. It is very strange that said Roop Narayan Verma is not arrayed as a party respondent in this writ petition which is also a factor that petitioner’s conduct is not bona-fide. 17. The outcome of above discussion is that no circumstance exists to interfere with impugned order. 18. In view of above, petition lacks merit and is dismissed.