CCA Rules inquiry not needed where appointment itself is obtained by fraud: Rajasthan High Court

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the procedure prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is not required to be followed where the very foundation of an appointment is alleged to have been obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated documents, ruling that fraud vitiates every solemn act and that the protection of Article 311 cannot be invoked by a person who never lawfully entered service.

A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal, partly allowing a batch of nineteen intra-court appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan against Physical Training Instructors whose terminations had been quashed by a learned Single Judge, observed that the Rules of 1958 presuppose lawful entry into service and cannot operate as a shield to protect an appointment whose very inception is alleged to be void ab initio.

Authoring the judgment for the bench, Justice Sunil Beniwal observed:

“The expression ‘Government servant’ presupposes a lawful entry into service. A person who secures appointment by practising fraud or by producing forged or fabricated documents cannot be permitted to contend that, merely because an order of appointment was issued and he was allowed to work for some time, he acquired the status of a Government servant so as to insist upon a full-fledged departmental inquiry under the Rules of 1958. Fraud vitiates every solemn act. If the appointment itself is void or non est in the eyes of law, the incumbent cannot claim a statutory protection flowing from the very appointment which is alleged to have been obtained fraudulently.”

The bunch of special appeals arose out of a common judgment of the Single Judge dated 08.05.2025 in Shravan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4298/2025, and connected orders disposing of similarly placed writ petitions in identical terms. The respondents-petitioners had been appointed as Physical Training Instructors, Grade III, pursuant to Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) Advertisement No. 08/2022. After they joined service, the genuineness of their educational qualification documents — degrees and mark-sheets issued by various private universities in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand — came under doubt. A committee of the Selection Board opined that the documents were not genuine, and following a verification exercise undertaken through the State of Uttar Pradesh and the issuance of show-cause notices, their services were terminated on 15.01.2025. The Single Judge quashed the terminations, holding that the procedure under the Rules of 1958 ought to have been followed, and the State preferred the present appeals.

Appearing for the appellants, the Advocate General Mr. Rajendra Prasad, with Additional Advocate General Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, submitted that the matter was not one of mere procedural irregularity or misconduct committed during service, but of appointments obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated testimonials — making the very entry into service void ab initio. It was urged that the Rules of 1958 contemplate disciplinary action against persons validly borne on Government service, and could not be invoked where the foundation of the appointment was itself tainted by fraud. Reliance was placed on R. Vishwanatha Pillai v State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 105, Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (2008) 13 SCC 170, Meghmala v G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383 and State of Bihar v Kirti Narayan Prasad (2019) 13 SCC 250.

For the respondents-petitioners, Senior Advocate Mr. R.N. Mathur, assisted by Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat, submitted that the credentials of the candidates had been verified at the time of appointment, that no concrete adverse finding had been recorded by the three-member committee constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh, and that any subsequent re-verification could only have proceeded under the Rules of 1958. It was further contended that the failure to supply the inquiry report along with the show-cause notice vitiated the entire process as being in breach of the principles of natural justice.

Examining Rule 2(f) and Rule 3 of the Rules of 1958, the bench held that the very foundation for the applicability of the Rules was that the person concerned must answer the description of a “Government servant” within the meaning of Rule 2(f), and must be holding a civil post “in a lawful and valid manner”. The Court held:

“The Rules of 1958 are intended to regulate disciplinary control over persons who are validly borne on Government service. They do not confer protection upon a person whose very entry into service is alleged to be vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or production of false documents… The protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the procedural safeguards under the Rules of 1958 are available to a person who validly holds a civil post. They cannot be extended to a person who, on account of fraud or false representation, was never entitled to hold the post.”

The Court drew extensively from the Supreme Court’s ruling in R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra), where it was held that an appointment acquired by practising fraud or deceit “is no appointment in law” and Article 311 stands wholly unattracted, and from Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (supra) and Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra) for the proposition that equity, sympathy and length of service offer no defence to an appointment whose very foundation rests on falsity.

The bench, however, clarified that even where the Rules of 1958 are not attracted, the employer is bound to observe the principles of natural justice before passing an order entailing adverse civil consequences. Issuance of a show-cause notice, disclosure of the material relied upon, and consideration of the explanation submitted by the appointee are all necessary — the requirement being not of a full-fledged departmental inquiry, but of a fair opportunity to meet the allegation that the appointment had been procured by forged documents. On facts, the Court noted that the respondents-petitioners had never been heard by the Selection Board’s committee, nor were they supplied with a copy of the inquiry report before being called upon to respond to the show-cause notice.

In light of this procedural infirmity, the bench partly allowed the appeals: it set aside the Single Judge’s direction requiring the State to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958, but maintained the direction relegating the matter to a committee for fresh examination. The composition of the committee — earlier ordered in Yashwant v State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2328/2025 — stands modified to the extent that an Administrative Officer not below the rank of an R.A.S. Officer shall be included in place of the Deputy Superintendent of Police nominated by the Director General, Special Operations Group. The Secretary of the Selection Board and a Joint Director-level officer of the Education Department remain on the panel.

The reconstituted committee is to be formed within fifteen days, issue notices to the respondents-petitioners, accept their responses within one month, and conclude proceedings within a further two months — the entire exercise to be completed within four months. The bench clarified that if the committee returns an opinion in favour of the respondents-petitioners, the State shall recall the termination orders and reinstate them with all consequential benefits; conversely, if the termination orders meet the committee’s approval, the respondents-petitioners shall be at liberty to avail of an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Title: State of Rajasthan v Chandra Pal Singh & Ors. (and connected matters)

Case No.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1162/2025 with connected D.B. Special Appeal Writs Nos. 1143, 1146, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1184, 1185, 1187, 1188, 1192, 1468, 1752, 1753, 1759 and 1798 of 2025

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB]

Counsel for appellants: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate-cum-Advocate General, with Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG, assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat and Ms. Mehali Mehta

Counsel for respondents: Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate (through VC), assisted by Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat, Mr. Kuldeep Vishnoi, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi, Mr. Divik Mathur, Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. Harsh Raj Purohit and Mr. Pranjul Mehta