1 2025:CGHC:46112-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 668 of 2025 Chief Executive Officer-Janpad Pachayat Takhatpur, Through Satyavrat Tiwari, S/o Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 38 Years, (Presently Posted As Chief Executive Officer-Janpad Panchayat-Takhatpur) R/o Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Rambati Kashyap, D/o Shri Bhim Lal Kashyap, Aged About 45 Years (Wrongly Mention In The Impugned Order Bhimram Kashyap) Post- Shiksha Karmi Grade- III, Primary School Khamharia, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, R/o Village Semaria, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 3/ State : Mr. Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as Ms. Manisha Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. Challenge in this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 read with Rule 157(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2005, is to the order dated 23.04.2025 passed in WPS No. 1404/2018 whereby the writ petitioner’s (respondent No. 4 herein) termination order from service of Shiksha Karmii-III has been set aside on the ground that the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the writ petitioner before passing of impugned termination order. 3. The facts, in brief are that an advertisement was issued by the appellant for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III vide advertisement dated 03.10.2009 for which the required educational qualification was D.Ed. The writ petitioner was duly selected and appointed vide order dated 23.06.2010 on probation for a period of two years. One of the conditions mentioned in the appointment order was that the appointment was temporary and if any of the information given by the applicant in its application form was found to be false, then the appointment was liable to be cancelled without further information. The writ petitioner submitted her documents/certificate regarding her D.Ed. along with application form, but same seemed to be doubtful and as 3 such, the appellant issued notice to her on 01.02.2012/03.02.2012 for submitting relevant documents. 4. After verification of the documents, the writ petitioner was terminated vide order dated 06.03.2012 against which she preferred an appeal before the Collector, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2012 and further a revision before the Commissioner, which also stood dismissed on 22.12.2014. A revision was also preferred by the writ petitioner before the State Government but the same has been dismissed on 31.10.2017. All these orders were put to challenge before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 23.04.2025 on the ground that the writ petitioner was not granted proper opportunity of hearing nor any enquiry was conducted. 5. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner was on probation period and the terms and conditions of the appointment order clearly stated that in case any information documents were found submitted by the candidate was found to be forged/false, then his/her appointment was liable to be terminated. The writ petitioner was duly issued show cause notices but the same was not responded to by the writ petitioner and as such, there is no illegality or irregularity in terminating the writ petitioner. When it was amply clear that the D.Ed certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was a forged one, then conducting any enquiry was an empty formality and as such, there was no illegality or irregularity in terminating the services of the writ petitioner. 6. Mr. Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No.1 to 3 submits that the appellant-Janpad Panchayat has rightly terminated the services of the writ petitioner as she had 4 submitted forged and fabricated documents and the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the well reasoned orders passed by the three consecutive authorities. 7. Ms. Manisha Yadav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that in absence of any full fledged enquiry, the writ petitioner could not have been terminated from service and as such, the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. An appointment secured by utter fraud, even if the employee has proceeded to confirmation in service, would not entitle him to the holding of disciplinary proceedings, where the fraud is apparent and requires no consideration of evidence on both sides to reach a definitive conclusion. Of course, the employee would be entitled to opportunity to show cause, which in this case has been given in ample measure. 10.The allegation against the writ petitioner/respondent No. 4 is that she had submitted forged D.Ed certificate allegedly issued by the Barkatulla University, Bhopal. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner was issued notice on 01.02.2012/03.02.2012 (Annexure R/4 to the writ petition) asking her to submit the 10th, 12th, employment exchange registration, D.Ed. Certificate, domicile, caste certificate etc. in the office of CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur. It was specifically mentioned in the notice that if the writ petitioner failed to respond to the said notice within three days and submit the requisite documents, then criminal proceedings would be initiated against her by lodging FIR. A letter was also sent on 03.01.2011 to the Chancellor, Barkatullah University, Bhopal to verify as 5 to whether the D.Ed certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was actually issued by that University or not and in response, the University has sent its report with remarks that the said University does not conducts two years D.Ed course. When the conduct of the writ petitioner is apparent and there remains no manner of doubt that the D.Ed certificate submitted by her was a forged one, then there was no need to conduct an enquiry which, in any case, would have been an empty formality as it was not denied by the writ petitioner that the said marksheet was enclosed by her alongwith her application form to secure the appointment. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants interference as even if the writ petitioner would have been issued notice and / or a full fledged enquiry would have been directed to be conducted, the fate of the said enquiry would be the same and as such, no fault can be found with impugned termination order dated 06.03.2012 passed by the appellant as well as the orders dated 12.10.2012, passed by the Collector, the order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner and the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the State Government. 11.As a result, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-Smt. Rambati Kashyap, stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.11 11:37:14 +0530