JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion: I. Introduction II. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties III. Issues IV. Facts V . Compliance of principles of natural justice VI. Departmental Enquiry: District Basic Education Officer and another vs. Punita Singh and others rendered in Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024 VII. Conclusion I. Introduction: 2. By the impugned order dated 28.09.2024 the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher have been terminated on the footing that the Intermediate Certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment was found to be forged. II. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties: 3. Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel assisted by Shri Parashar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: a. The order of termination was not preceded by a regular departmental enquiry. b. The show cause notice reflected a predetermined mind set. c. The report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. was not served upon the petitioner which precluded him from contesting the same. d. There was no requirement of filing of Class XII marksheet at the time of appointment since the petitioner was in possession of higher eligibility qualifications. Hence even if the marksheet was forged the petitioner stood nothing to gain from the same. e. The petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and others reported at 2013 (3) ESC 1542 (All). 4. Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel and Sri Manvendra Singh learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari submit as under: I. The educational certificates submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment were found to be forged. II. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. which had purportedly issued the aforesaid certificates had affirmed the fraudulent character of the aforesaid certificates in a written report. III. Prior to termination of services of the petitioner he was given full opportunity of tendering his defence and the report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. was served upon the petitioner. IV. Principles of natural justice were duly complied with prior passing the impugned order. III. Prior to termination of services of the petitioner he was given full opportunity of tendering his defence and the report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. was served upon the petitioner. IV. Principles of natural justice were duly complied with prior passing the impugned order. V. There was no requirement of regular departmental enquiry in such cases in view of the law laid down by this Court in District Basic Education Officer and another vs. Punita Singh and others rendered in Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024. VI. The show cause notice was not issued with a predetermined mind set but fully reflects application of mind to the material in the record. III. Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order was passed in compliance of principles of natural justice ? (ii) Whether there was requirement to hold a full fledged departmental enquiry in facts of this case ? IV. Facts: 5. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 11.02.2009. A complaint was received regarding genuineness of the Intermediate Examination Certificate that was submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment. The said certificate was purportedly issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Pursuant to the complaint the authenticity of the said Intermediate Examination Certificate was examined afresh by the appointing authority. A report was sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. which finds that the Intermediate Certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment could not be reconciled from the records and was not genuine. 6. A show cause notice was issued on 04.09.2024 to the petitioner. Under the said show cause notice the petitioner was required to tender his defence in respect of the charge of fraudulent Intermediate Education Certificate submitted by him at the time of his appointment. The said show cause notice also records that the report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. regarding fraudulent character of the said certificate is being served upon the petitioner. The petitioner duly received the said show cause notice. 7. The petitioner joined the proceedings by tendering a reply to the said show cause notice. 8. The impugned order of dismissal had duly considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and other materials in the record. The petitioner duly received the said show cause notice. 7. The petitioner joined the proceedings by tendering a reply to the said show cause notice. 8. The impugned order of dismissal had duly considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and other materials in the record. The disciplinary authority after examining the report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. that the Intermediate Education marksheet submitted by the petitioner was not available in the records and the marksheet was found to be forged. The defence of the petitioner was that marks which were reflected in the marksheet i.e. 357 were enhanced after the scrutiny process. The said process was taken out after the issuance of the earlier marksheet. The petitioner could not successfully challenge or discredit the report of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. The defence of the petitioner found to be false and accordingly rejected by the disciplinary authority. Fraud in the aforesaid educational certificates cannot be countenanced in such matters. V. Compliance of principles of Nature Justice: 9. A perusal of the impugned order, the pleadings and the materials in the record disclose that there was due application of mind by the disciplinary authority to the relevant facts in the record including the defence of the petitioner while passing the impugned order. There is no perversity in the finding returned by the disciplinary authority. 10. The disciplinary authority had duly noticed the petitioner. The show cause notice depicts the charges against the petitioner with clarity and material particulars. The show cause notice was not issued with a predetermined mind set and reflects examination of materials in the records. 11. The recitals in the show cause notice state that a copy of the report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. was duly served upon the petitioner. 12. In the reply to the show cause notice the petitioner did not contest the recitals in the show cause notice that the report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (confirming the forgery in the intermediate marksheet) was served upon him. Pleadings to this effect taken in the counter affidavit have also not been satisfactorily refuted by the petitioner. Pleadings to this effect taken in the counter affidavit have also not been satisfactorily refuted by the petitioner. This Court consequently finds that the report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. regarding the authenticity of the Intermediate Examination Certificate of the petitioner was served upon him alongwith the show cause notice. 13. In this wake this Court concludes the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority was consistent with the principles of natural justice and did not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. The impugned order is supported with reasons & there is no perversity in the same. 14. The issue regarding requirement to submit Intermediate Education Certificate will now be determined. 15. Candidates appointed as Assistant Teachers are required to tender their educational testimonials including the Intermediate Examination Certificate before the appointing authority for scrutiny, and for being kept in the record. Without Intermediate education certificate the eligibility of the petitioner is called in question. The said education certificate has a bearing on the appointment and service records of the petitioner. 16. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner passed by this Court in Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and others reported at 2013 (3) ESC 1542 (All) is not relevant for the purpose of instant case and is clearly distinguishable. The said case is not an authority for the proposition that fraudulent academic qualification should be upheld by the authorities. VI. Departmental Enquiry: 17. The question which now arises for consideration is whether a full fledged disciplinary enquiry was required to be held in light of the above facts. Admittedly this is a case of cancellation of appointment on the foot of filing of forged documents at the time of appointment. The discussion has the benefit of good authorities in point. 18. The applicability of the UP Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 for the purposes of holding a regular departmental enquiry in similar facts fell for consideration before a learned Division Bench of this Court in District Basic Education Officer and another vs. Punita Singh and others rendered in Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024. 19. In the case of Punita Singh (supra), the services of the petitioner were terminated on the footing that her educational certificates were forged and fabricated. 19. In the case of Punita Singh (supra), the services of the petitioner were terminated on the footing that her educational certificates were forged and fabricated. The question arose whether in these facts, the issuance of show cause notice and compliance of broad principles of natural justice were sufficient to meet the ends of justice or it was imperative to hold a regular departmental enquiry. In this context, while considering the applicability of Rules, 1999, the learned Division Bench of this Court held : "16. From the above determination, it is apparent that the University has categorically indicated that the documents relied on by the respondent for seeking employment were totally forged and fabricated. Neither before the learned Single Judge nor before this Court any attempt has been made to negate the finding recorded about the eligibility/qualification documents being forged and fabricated. 17. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition only on the ground that termination of employment amounts to imposing major penalty and the same could not have been imposed without holding inquiry under Rules of 1973/Rules of 1999. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Balrampur Vs. Anand Kumar Tripathi and others : 2024:AHC- LKO:37313-DB, in a case where compassionate appointment accorded to the respondent therein, was terminated on account of failure to produce relevant documents as regard his parentage, etc., the Division Bench, on the question whether in such case show cause notice should be issued and thereafter order of cancellation of appointment should be passed or a full fledged inquiry in terms of Rules of 1999 should be held followed by removal or dismissal, came to the conclusion that disciplinary proceedings are ordinarily initiated if any misconduct has been committed after joining service, therefore, if the initial appointment itself was fraudulent, then referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others : (2004) 2 SCC 105 , and Patna High Court judgements in Ishwar Dayual Sah Vs. State of Bihar : 1987 Lab IC390 and Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Education : 1988 Lab IC 907, came to the following conclusion: "12. Taking a cue from the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that if it is ultimately found on inquiry referred earlier that the opposite party no. State of Bihar : 1987 Lab IC390 and Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Education : 1988 Lab IC 907, came to the following conclusion: "12. Taking a cue from the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that if it is ultimately found on inquiry referred earlier that the opposite party no. 1 had practiced fraud or deceit to obtain the appointment as already discussed, then, it would be a case to proceed for cancellation of appointment by issuing a show cause notice for the said purpose annexing the inquiry report and material collected in such inquiry and then considering the reply of the appointee in this regard and taking a reasoned decision after affording an opportunity of personal hearing for cancellation of appointment and not necessarily for dismissal or removal of service, therefore, there is no question of any inquiry to be held in terms of Rules, 1999 as has already been held in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 13. This will be sufficient observance of principles of natural justice. It may also be pointed out that an employee of Basic Education Department does not have the benefit of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as Article 311 of the Constitution of India would not apply, however, the relevant rules for disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major punishment such as removal, dismissal etc. would apply, but, for the reasons aforesaid, those will also not apply if on a fact finding inquiry it is found that the appointment was obtained by fraud, as already observed hereinabove and thereafter the aforesaid procedure is followed." 19. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prohlad Guha etc.: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865, in a case where the writ petitions filed by the employees were allowed for not following the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and on coming to the conclusion that qua a person in regular service, the dismissal cannot take place sans any disciplinary inquiry, while setting aside the judgement, came to the following conclusion: "13. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on a further ground, since the requisite to establish eligibility for compassionate appointment was not properly fulfilled, they were appointed on the basis of false claims and fabricated documents. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on a further ground, since the requisite to establish eligibility for compassionate appointment was not properly fulfilled, they were appointed on the basis of false claims and fabricated documents. It then becomes imperative to discuss what constitutes fraud and what is its impact on an act afflicted by such vice. R.M. Sahai, J. writing in Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers observed - "20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. ...From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of a fact with knowledge that it was false. .....The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. The representation to become fraudulent must be of a fact with knowledge that it was false. .....The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a Section on existence or non-existence of which power can be exercised. 13.1. The words of Denning L.J. in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley are of importance qua the impact of fraud. He wrote - ".....I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The Court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgment, contract and all transactions whatsoever...." 13.2. 'Fraud' is conduct expressed by letter or by word, inducing the other party to take a definite stand as a response to the conduct of the doer of such fraud. [See; Derry v. Peek; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School of Intermediate Education] 13.3 In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, a Bench of three learned Judges observed that a person who held a post which he had obtained by fraud, could not be said to be holding a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In this case, a person who was not a member of Scheduled Castes, obtained a false certificate of belonging to such category and, as a result thereof, was appointed to a position in the Indian Police Service reserved for applicants from such category. 14. The above discussion reiterates that fraud vitiates all proceedings. Compassionate appointment is granted to those persons whose families are left deeply troubled or destitute by the primary breadwinner either having been incapacitated or having passed away. 14. The above discussion reiterates that fraud vitiates all proceedings. Compassionate appointment is granted to those persons whose families are left deeply troubled or destitute by the primary breadwinner either having been incapacitated or having passed away. So when persons seeking appointment on such ground attempt to falsely establish their eligibility, as has been done in this case, such positions cannot be allowed to be retained. So far as the submission of non-compliance of the Rules is concerned, the judgment in Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) answers the question. The Respondent-employees in the present case, having obtained their position by fraud, would not be considered to be holding a post for the purpose of the protections under the Constitution. We are supported in this conclusion by the observations made in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal. In paragraph 25 thereof it was observed - "25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus - a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav [ (1996) 4 SCC 127 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 592: AIR 1996 SC 1340 ] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India [ (2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056].) Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur)." (Emphasis supplied) 15. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court, in view of the above discussion, is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Respondent-employees' Original Applications is restored. The Respondent- employees were rightly dismissed from service by the Appellant-employer. ……….." 20. From the above, it is well established that in case, the employment has been obtained based on fraudulent documents, the beneficiary of such fraud cannot seek that procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1999 must be followed. 21. The Respondent- employees were rightly dismissed from service by the Appellant-employer. ……….." 20. From the above, it is well established that in case, the employment has been obtained based on fraudulent documents, the beneficiary of such fraud cannot seek that procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1999 must be followed. 21. So far as the judgment in the case of Smt. Parmi Maurya (supra) relied on by counsel for the respondent is concerned, it was a case where the Division Bench came to the conclusion that petitioner therein, was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing. However, in the present case, it is ex facie clear from the order impugned that she was provided adequate opportunity with regard to her documents being forged and fabricated and the only plea raised by her was that she would produce duplicate copies of the said documents and neither in the writ petition nor in the present appeal, she has been able to produce any further document/material to substantiate that the mark-sheets issued to her, were not forged and fabricated. " 20. The case at hand is squarely covered by the law laid down in Punita (supra). VII. Conclusion: 21. In the wake of preceding discussion, there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondents while passing the impugned order and the impugned order is lawful and just. Furthermore, this is a case of cancellation of appointment which was procured by fraud. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. 22. In the special circumstances of the case the bills of Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mainpuri shall be cleared by the Board.