[2026:RJ-JP:2508] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15934/2024 Khem Chand Yadav Son Of Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 01, Dhani Naya Kuaa, Neem Ka Thana, Bhagega, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Chairman, Rajasthan Cooperative Recruitment Board, 10-B, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. General Manager (Personnel Administration), Rajasthan Co-Operative Dairy Federation Limited, Saras Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Managing Director, Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Sangh Limited, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj.) 4. Managing Director, Sikar And Jhunjhunu Zila Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Sangh Limited, Palsana, Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jaya Mitra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC Mr. Ashish Kishore Mr. Vinodi Lal Mathur, with Mr. Amit Dhawan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 1 Arguments concluded on 13.01.2026 2 Judgment reserved on 13.01.2026 3 Full judgment or operative part pronounced Full Judgment 4 Pronounced on 23/01/2026 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned termination order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby services of the petitioner on the post of Dairy (2 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] Supervisor – III at Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Ajmer were terminated on account of submission of fake and forged experience certificates at the time of appointment, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE LIS AT HAND: 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition, in a nutshell, are as under: 2.1 The respondent No.2 issued an advertisement inter alia inviting applications for recruitment to various posts in Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited (RCDFL), Jaipur and its affiliated Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh. 2.2 A perusal of the said advertisement reveals that the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Dairy Supervisor – III was Senior Secondary, along with a mandatory work experience of three (03) years on the post of Secretary of a Dairy Cooperative Society. 2.3 The petitioner, in pursuance of the said advertisement, claiming to possess the requisite eligibility, applied for the said post at Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Ajmer, and submitted his Senior Secondary Examination marksheet and two experience certificates, both dated 01.12.2021, along with the application. 2.4 Consequent to the written examination held on 16.08.2021 and the process of document verification conducted on 09.12.2021 and 10.12.2021 qua the petitioner, an Offer of Appointment dated 08.03.2022 was issued. Subsequently, the appointment order dated 16.03.2022 came to be issued, and the petitioner joined his duties on the said post on 01.04.2022 on a (3 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] probationary basis for a period of two years. Later, services of the petitioner were confirmed/made permanent vide order dated 22.04.2024 by the respondent No.3-employer. 2.5 The genesis of the dispute inter se the parties arose upon the receipt of a complaint/information by the Managing Director, Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Sangh Limited, Sikar and Jhunjunu (hereinafter referred to as “Dairy Co-operative Society, Sikar and Jhunjunu), alleging that the petitioner had secured appointment to the said post by submitting false and fabricated experience certificates. Acting upon the said information, the respondent No.1-recruitment board issued a letter dated 26.04.2024 inter alia directing an inquiry and verification of the experience certificates submitted by all the candidates for the said post. Consequently, letters dated 02.05.2024 and 16.05.2024 were issued by respondent No. 2-RCDFL directing respondent No.3-employer to conduct a thorough verification of the experience certificates submitted by all the selected candidates and to take appropriate/necessary actions against the petitioner at the employer level. 2.6 In compliance with the instructions from RCDFL, respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 21.05.2024 to the petitioner, seeking an explanation qua the alleged forged and fabricated experience certificates. It is noteworthy that the said letter dated 21.05.2024 has already been assailed by the petitioner before this Court, by way of a writ petition bearing S.B. C.W.P. No. 9512/2024 titled Khem Chand Yadav Son of Shri Kailash Chand Yadav v. Member Secretary Co-Operative Recruitment Board & Ors., which remains subjudice as of date. (4 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] 2.7 Being dissatisfied with the explanation tendered by the petitioner in the aforesaid regard, respondent No.3 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”), along with a copy of the detailed Inquiry Report dated 25.01.2024 conducted by the Assistant Registrar, Dairy Co-operative Society, Sikar and Jhunjunu, relying upon the Committee Audit Report conducted jointly by the Sirohi Mahila Dugdh Utpadak Coperative Society and the Bhagega Primary Utpadak Coperative Society (hereinafter referred to as “the Sirohi Dairy Co-operative Society” and “the Bhagega Dairy Co-operative Society” respectively) 2.8 Finding the reply to the SCN to be evasive and unsatisfactory, respondent No.3 proceeded to issue the impugned termination order dated 26.09.2024, thereby dismissing services of the petitioner on account of the grave misconduct of procuring employment through fraudulent means. CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 3. Ms. Jaya Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, respondent No.3 has committed a manifest error in interfering with and deeming the experience certificates dated 01.12.2021 submitted by the petitioner as forged and fabricated. 3.1 It is contended that the impugned termination order dated 26.09.2024 has been issued by the respondents without following the due procedure and in blatant disregard of the principles of natural justice, and is, therefore, arbitrary and legally unsustainable in the eyes of law. (5 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] 3.2 It is urged that fulfilling the required eligibility criteria in toto and having work experience of more than three years as the Secretary of the Dairy Cooperative Societies, the petitioner duly applied for the post of Dairy Supervisor – III. 3.3 It is submitted that the respondents paid no heed to the detailed replies submitted by the petitioner establishing his bona fides on numerous occasions, such as on 24.05.2024, 28.05.2024, and 14.09.2024. 3.4 It is further submitted that the impugned order, having been passed without due consideration of the replies submitted by the petitioner, suffers from non-application of mind. 3.5 Lastly, it is asserted that both the experience certificates dated 01.12.2021 submitted by the petitioner are genuine and original, as the same have been issued by the competent authorities, and false allegations of fabrication and forgery of documents have been levelled qua the petitioner by the respondents. 3.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed by the learned counsel to allow the present petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned termination order dated 26.09.2024, and to reinstate petitioner back to the post of Dairy Supervisor – III, along with the payment of all consequential benefits and back wages. CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 4. Per contra, Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, learned AGC, along with Mr. Ashish Kishore, Mr. Vinodi Lal Mathur, and Mr. Amit Dhawan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, have stoutly opposed the present writ petition. (6 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] 4.1 It is submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi which means that ‘suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood’. It is further submitted that by producing false and fabricated experience certificates in order to secure employment, the petitioner has committed fraud upon the entire recruitment process. 4.2 It is emphasized that securing public employment on the basis of fabricated and forged documents constitutes serious and grave misconduct; therefore, the actions of respondents were wholly justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner. 4.3 It is contended that the recruitment advertisement unequivocally mandated a minimum working experience of three years on the post of Secretary, and in pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner, with open eyes, applied for the post of Dairy Supervisor – III and submitted two experience certificates, both dated 01.12.2021. 4.4 It is averred that consequent to the appointment of the petitioner on the said post, and upon carrying out detailed verification and inquiry of the said experience certificates, it surfaced that the experience certificates furnished by the petitioner were concocted and had been made/generated at the eleventh hour, solely to mislead the respondents, in order to secure public employment. 4.5 Reliance has been placed by learned counsel upon Clause 15 of the Offer of Appointment dated 08.03.2022, which explicitly stipulates that services of the employee are liable to be terminated with immediate effect, if any document submitted by (7 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] the said employee is found to be fake, or if any deficiency is detected in any of the documents submitted by the said employee during the time of appointment. 4.6 It is next submitted that relying upon the said Clause 15, services of the petitioner have rightly been terminated on account of the disclosure of the fact that forged and fabricated documents had been furnished by the petitioner during his appointment through the process of direct recruitment. 4.7 It is argued that the termination order dated 26.09.2024 has rightly been issued by the employer after following the due procedure of law and principles of natural justice. 4.8 It is next averred that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunities to explain his gross misconduct of furnishing false and fabricated documents vide letter dated 21.05.2024 and the SCN dated 04.09.2024. It was only upon finding the replies of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory and unjustified that the respondents were left with no other alternative but to terminate the services of the petitioner vide order dated 26.09.2024, on account of serious and grave misconduct. 4.9 It is further contended that the said termination order has rightly been issued by the respondent No.3-employer, strictly in accordance with law, relying upon the detailed inquiry report dated 25.01.2024 conducted by the Assistant Registrar, Dairy Co- operative Society, Sikar and Jhunjunu, and the Committee Audit Report conducted jointly by the Sirohi Dairy Cooperative Society and the Bhagega Dairy Cooperative Society. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the termination order qua the petitioner came to be (8 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] issued without adjudication and consideration of the replies put forth by the petitioner. 4.10 Lastly, relying upon the dictum encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Ex. Ct. Vinod Kumar, MANU/SCOR/85511/2025, it is submitted that the services of an employee can be terminated without conducting a full-fledged departmental inquiry in cases where forged and fabricated documents have been furnished by the employee to secure public employment. 4.11 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above-mentioned dictum, it is prayed by learned counsel to dismiss the present writ petition. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 5. Heard the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Dairy Supervisor – III at Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Ajmer, based on the Offer of Appointment dated 08.03.2022. 7. It is equally undisputed that by the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, services of the petitioner have been terminated by the respondent No.3-employer on account of the serious and grave misconduct of furnishing forged and fabricated experience certificates. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the said experience certificates are completely genuine and original. 8. Therefore, the short question and pivotal issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: (9 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the respondent No.3-employer was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service qua the petitioner by relying upon the Inquiry Report dated 25.01.2024? 9. Before delving into the factual intricacies of the case, it is apposite to refer to the provisions under which the termination order qua the petitioner has been issued by the respondents. 10. It is the case of respondents that relying upon Clause 15 of the Offer of Appointment dated 08.03.2022, services of the petitioner have been terminated. For a meticulous understanding of the case at hand, the said clause is reproduced as under: “15. यदद आपके ्ቛााብा सीधी भरर की ्ቚदकया के दौाብान उपलब काብाये गये द्ቜावेज्ቯं मे क्ቯई कमी अथवा फजर पाये जारे है, र्ቯ आपकी सेवाऐं रताल ्ቚभाव से समाप काብ दी जावेगी।” 11. Moreover, upon assiduous perusal of the material available on record, it has been observed by this Court that Clause 20 of the recruitment advertisement issued by the respondent- recruitment board also empowers the respondents to disqualify any candidate for providing incorrect information, even at the subsequent stage after the completion of the selection process. The said clause is reproduced as under: “20. Instances for providing incorrect information and/or process violation by a candidate detected at any stage of the selection process will lead to disqualification of the candidate from the selection process and he/she will not be allowed to appear in any recruitment process in future. If such instances go undetected during the current selection process but are detected subsequently, such disqualification will take place with retrospective effect. Clarifications/decisions given/to be given by the (10 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] BOARD regarding process for recruitment to various posts shall be final and binding.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In light of the above-mentioned provisions enshrined under the Offer of Appointment and the recruitment advertisement, the respondents possess the indefeasible authority to dismiss/terminate the services of an employee if the foundation of such appointment is built upon incorrect and forged information. Therefore, it can be said that the respondents have the right and authority to issue the termination order to any employee, if there is a violation of any of the above-mentioned provisions. 13. Now, adverting to the validity of the experience certificates dated 01.12.2021 furnished by the petitioner, along with his application form for the post of Dairy Supervisor – III. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner applied for the said post in pursuance of the recruitment advertisement issued by the respondent-recruitment board. 14. Upon perusal of Clause 12, enshrined at page No. 60 of the said advertisement, it has been observed that the minimum required qualification for the said post was Senior Secondary with three years of working experience at the post of Secretary of a Dairy Co-operative Society. The said clause is reproduced as under: “Educational Qualification 12. Dairy Supervisor (III) Senior Secondary with 3 yrs experience of working as secretary of a dairy co-operative society. Age limit: As per Rajasthan Government rules.” (11 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] 15. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner furnished two experience certificates, both dated 01.12.2021 and the details of both of them are as follows: i. Certificate ‘A’: Issued by the Sirohi Dairy Co- operative Society – For the period starting from 25.04.2017 to 20.08.2019 . ii. Certificate ‘B’: Issued by the Bhagega Dairy Co- operative Society – For the period stating from 20.08.2019 to 01.12.2021. 16. The respondents, prima facie, established their case by pointing out a manifest incongruity in the said experience certificates. Upon a bare perusal of the same, the petitioner is shown to be working as Secretary in both the Dairy Co-operative Societies (at Sirohi and at Bhagega) simultaneously on 20.08.2019. This overlap casts a serious shadow of doubt on the authenticity of the said certificates. 17. Due to the said deficiency being pointed out in the experience certificates, the inference of this Court has been drawn upon the detailed Inquiry Report dated 25.01.2024 conducted by the Assistant Registrar, Dairy Co-operative Society, Sikar and Jhunjunu, and the Committee Audit Report conducted jointly by the Sirohi Dairy Cooperative Society and the Bhagega Dairy Cooperative Society. 18. Upon careful and detailed consideration of the said Inquiry Report and the Committee Audit Report, the following facts have been reflected: i) As per the minutes of the meeting dated 20.08.2019, held by the Managing Committee of the Bhagega Dairy Co-operative (12 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] Society, one Mr. Babulal Yadav, was relieved from the post of Secretary, and the petitioner was appointed as the Secretary w.e.f 20.08.2019. ii) As per the minutes of the meeting dated 22.09.2019, held by the Managing Committee of the Bhagega Dairy Co-operative Society, the former Secretary, Mr. Babulal Yadav, was unanimously appointed as the Chairman of the same Co- operative Society, within a mere lapse of one month after being relieved from the post of Secretary, without holding any elections for the post of Chairman. The whole process of conducting the appointment to the post of Chairman is, therefore, void ab initio and per se illegal. iii) The experience certificate dated 01.12.2021, submitted by the petitioner in order to secure employment, issued by the Bhagega Dairy Co-operative Society has been appended by the then Chairman, Mr. Babulal Yadav, whose own authority and appointment are legally questionable as the same had been made without following the due procedure of law. iv) Most surprisingly, at point No.4 of the said Inquiry Report, it has categorically been pointed out that during the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Secretary, the father of the petitioner, Mr. Kailash Chand Yadav, was functioning as the Chairman of the same Co-operative Society, which is per se illegal and is in gross violation of the principles of transparency and natural justice. 19. After due consideration of the Inquiry Report, the attention of the Court is drawn to a letter dated 13.12.2022, issued by the Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank situated at Sirohi (13 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] (hereinafter referred to as “BRKG Bank”) and in the said letter it has categorically been pointed out that the petitioner, being Secretary, had operated and regulated the bank accounts of the respective co-operative societies for the period as follows: i. Sirohi Dairy Co-operative Society: For the period starting from 06.03.2019 to 11.12.2021. ii. Bhagega Dairy Co-operative Society: For the period starting from 12.12.2021 to 06.03.2022. This unequivocally establishes the fact that the petitioner had discharged duties as the Secretary for the aforesaid period at the respective co-operative societies mentioned above. 20. This Court has observed that there is a glaring contradiction between the bank records submitted by the BRKG Bank and the experience certificates furnished by the petitioner. Whilst, through Certificate ‘A’, the petitioner claims experience of working as Secretary in the Sirohi Dairy Co-operative Society from the year 2017, precisely from 25.04.2017, the bank records reflect his tenure as Secretary commencing only in the year 2019, precisely from 06.03.2019. 21. Moreover, through Certificate ‘B’, the petitioner claims experience of working as Secretary in the Bhagega Dairy Co- operative Society till the year 2021, precisely till 01.12.2021. However, the bank record reflects that the petitioner, being Secretary, was operating the bank accounts of the said Co- operative Society from 12.12.2021 to 06.03.2022. Therefore, on account of the glaring contradiction between the bank records of the BRKG Bank and the experience certificates furnished by the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in stating that the (14 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] petitioner had wrongly submitted false and fabricated experience certificates, both dated 01.12.2021, in order to secure public employment. 22. At last, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the Audit Report of the year 2019-2020 and as per point No. 5 of the said audit report, Mr. Babulal Yadav was discharging duties at the post of Secretary at the Bhagega Dairy Co-operative Society in the year 2019-2020 despite of being relieved on 20.08.2019, contrary to the facts stated by the petitioner of being appointed at the post of Secretary from 20.08.2019. Moreover, upon a bare perusal of the said Audit Report, it has been observed that there is not even an iota of reflection of the claim of the petitioner of being deputed to the post of Secretary on 20.08.2019 in the said audit report. Therefore, it is an established fact, corroborated by the letter dated 13.12.2022 issued by the BRKG Bank and the Audit Report of the year 2019-2020, that the petitioner had been appointed at the post of Secretary, Bhagega Dairy Co-operative Society, after the commencement of the year 2020, precisely on 12.02.2021, contrary to the claim of the petitioner. CONCLUSION 23. Considering the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the instant case, and upon detailed and careful consideration of all the material available on record, including but not limited to the experience certificates dated 01.12.2021 furnished by the petitioner and the detailed Inquiry Report dated 25.01.2024, this Court has formulated the following views: (15 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] i.) The information submitted by the petitioner regarding the experience of working at the post of Secretary is false, incorrect, and concocted one. The actual period for which the petitioner discharged his duties as the Secretary at Sirohi is approximately 1 year, 11 months and 06 days (starting from 06.03.2019 till 11.02.2021) and the actual period for which the petitioner discharged his duties as the Secretary at Bhagega is approximately 1 year and 23 days (starting from 12.02.2021 till 06.03.2022). ii). As per the recruitment advertisement, the last date of filing the application was 26.02.2021, and as per Clause 10 of the said advertisement, the candidate must possess the prescribed working experience of three years as Secretary till the date of registration of online application. It is pertinent to note that till the last date of registration, the actual working experience of the petitioner as Secretary in both the co-operative societies was approximately 1 year, 11 months and 21 days. Therefore, it can be concluded that the petitioner was falling short of the prescribed minimum required working experience of 3 years even till the last date of registration. iii). This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner applied for the post of Dairy Supervisor – III without even holding the minimum prescribed qualifications for the said post. However, when the petitioner was called for document verification on 09.12.2021, the petitioner, in order to get hold of the required minimum qualification of working experience and solely motivated by the intent to secure public employment, had created concocted and fabricated experience certificates dated 01.12.2021 (just 8 (16 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] days prior to the scheduled date of document verification) at the eleventh hour, signed by the unauthorized persons, solely to mislead the respondents in order to secure public employment. iv). Relying upon the Inquiry Report dated 25.01.2024, the respondent-employer acted strictly in accordance with the provisions enshrined under the Offer of Appointment and the recruitment advertisement, and rightly issued the impugned termination order dated 26.09.2024 inter alia dismissing the services of the petitioner, after providing ample opportunities of being heard, following the due procedure of law, and adhering to the principles of natural justice. 24. For better adjudication of the case at hand, this Court has relied upon the dictum encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar, (2022) 17 SCC 361, wherein it has been held that producing the false and fabricated certificate is a grave misconduct if an employee had produced the same for seeking employment and dismissal of service is a justified punishment in such cases. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex is reproduced as under: “22. In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority for producing fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.” (emphasis supplied) (17 of 17) [CW-15934/2024] 25. It is a settled proposition of law that sympathy cannot override the provisions enshrined under statutes and by-laws. When the foundation of an appointment is based on forgery, the superstructure is bound to collapse. In view of the foregoing discussions, findings and analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity in the process of issuing the termination order dated 26.09.2024 adopted by the respondents. Thus, no inference is warranted upon the said impugned order by this Court. 26. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN/