Acceptance of qualifications at the time of appointment cannot be questioned after 30 years unless there is fraud: MP High Court

Background

An order dated 20/12/2023 by the Additional Collector, District Balaghat, initiated an investigation into an alleged forged disability certificate produced by Dharamdas Bhalekar, at the time of his joining in service in 1993. The investigation was initiated on the basis of a complaint suggesting that the petitioner had only 15% temporary disability at the time of appointment, instead of the permanent disability requirement of at least 40% under the Person With Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act 1995. The petitioner contested the inquiry.

Arguments

First, the petitioner argued that the state authorities could not examine a certificate submitted thirty years ago, especially when he had completed 80% of his service and was nearing retirement. Secondly, he alleged that the investigation was motivated by malice as he had filed multiple complaints against accused No. 6, a Deputy Commissioner in the department who was prosecuted based on the petitioner’s complaints. Moreover, he submitted that the complainant, Dharmendra Lilhare (respondent No. 7), did not exist and that the complaints were anonymous, orchestrated by respondent No. 6.

The State strongly opposed the request, arguing that if an appointment was made through fraud and forged certificates, the passage of time did not matter. They argued that any malice on the part of the complainant was irrelevant if the appointment itself had been wrongly obtained. The state relied on the established legal principle that fraud spoils everything.

Reasoning of the Court

First, upon examining the contents of the complaint, the court noted that it did not allege that the certificate was forged or fabricated, but rather asserted that it demonstrated only 15% temporary disability. The court emphasized the crucial distinction between accepting an unacceptable certificate and dealing with a forged certificate. The court noted that the complainant had not alleged that the petitioner did not even have the 15% temporary disability mentioned in the certificate, nor had it alleged that the certificate had never been issued. These omissions were significant because there were no clear allegations of fraud or forgery.

The State authorities had appointed the petitioner “with open eyes” in 1993, with full knowledge of the certificate proving his temporary disability. The court noted that this was not a case of suppression or misrepresentation of facts, but of surveillance. Further, the court cited several Supreme Court judgments including Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University (AIR 1976 SC 376) and Guru Nanak Dev University vs Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610, which held that recordings, though illegal but not based on suppression or misrepresentation, should not be canceled after a significant lapse of time.

In addition, the court also specifically relied on: Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494, where it was held that errors not attributable to appointees and cases without fraud or misrepresentation should not lead to dismissal after long periods of service. The court therefore concluded that the authorities cannot suddenly question the acceptance of qualifications by their predecessors after thirty years, as “cases concluded cannot simply be confused in this way”. However, the court recognized the need to balance different interests and allowed an investigation, but strictly limited its scope to examining whether the declaration of invalidity had actually been issued by the competent authority. The request was therefore granted in part, with the specific direction that if the certificate is found to have been validly issued, no adverse action can be taken merely because the disability rate was deemed unacceptable at the time of appointment.

Date: October 25, 2024

Quote: 2024:MPHC-JBP:54010