SAHAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. Counsel for the petitioner is not present. Learned Standing Counsel Sri Ravi Ranjan is present. In compliance with the order passed by this Court dated 26.3.2009, learned standing Counsel has produced original file relating to appointment of the petitioner. The court has perused the same. The challenge in the present writ petition is regarding the order of termination dated 25.1.2008 by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that he has obtained the appointment by playing fraud showing therein that he is a dependent of an employee who has died in harness. It appears that Writ Petition No.11505 of 2006, Ashwini Kumar Vs. State of U.P. was filed and this Court after hearing was pleased to pass a detailed order directing the authorities concerned to make an inquiry to this effect regarding obtaining appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules by various persons claiming themselves to be the dependent of the police employees. On the basis of the directions issued by this Court dated 21.4.2006, a detailed inquiry was made and concerned employees who claim to be appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules were called and their affidavits were invited with an indication regarding submission of the various documents showing therein as to how they have been appointed either on merit or the appointment was compassionate under the Dying in Harness Rues. Learned Standing Counsel submitted the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 27.8.1998 which clearly indicates that the petitioner was appointed as a dependent of one Chaub Singh, constable who was serving and died in harness. In the inquiry it was found that the father of the petitioner was working in education department as lecturer and after retirement he is residing at his residence. The petitioner has also submitted an affidavit dated 13.5.2006 to this extent. In spite of the time granted to the petitioner claiming subsequently that he was directly appointed on merits and his appointment was not under Dying in Harness Rules as no document has been submitted by the petitioner, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to disbelieve the document and record submitted by the learned Standing Counsel. It is well established in law that fraud vitiates everything. If an appointment has been obtained by playing fraud or concealing certain facts, then in that case if subsequently it is found on an inquiry that the person has obtained the appointment by playing fraud, the appointment can be cancelled. In the present case the inquiry was done on the basis of the direction issued by this Court and the petitioner was having full knowledge about the inquiry and he has been inquired and affidavit to that extent has been taken from the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be held by any means that the order of termination is in any way against the principle of natural justice. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The affidavit as well as the appointment letter of the petitioner is being kept with the record and that will form part of the record. No order is passed as to costs.