Allahabad HC Division Bench Sets Aside Reinstatement of Bandi Rakshak Who Secured Appointment on Forged Scheduled Tribe Certificate
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that an appointment obtained by submitting a forged caste certificate is void ab initio and attracts no protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, overturning a Single Judge order that had reinstated the employee with full back-benefits.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Vivek Saran and Justice Atul Sreedharan, on 17 July 2026 allowed the State of Uttar Pradesh's intra-court special appeal and set aside a 2008 Single Judge order that had reinstated Ranveer Singh as Bandi Rakshak with continuity, seniority and arrears of salary. The bench held that Singh had obtained his appointment on 8 August 1992 under the Scheduled Tribe reserved category by submitting a caste certificate that verification authorities subsequently found was never issued by any competent officer. Because the appointment itself was illegal and non-est, no formal departmental disciplinary inquiry under service rules was required before passing the dismissal order, and Article 311 of the Constitution afforded Singh no protection.
How Singh Was Appointed and What the 2007 Verification Revealed
Singh was appointed as Bandi Rakshak on 8 August 1992 in a special drive for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. He relied on a caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar Sadar, Kaisar Bagh, Lucknow, certifying that he belonged to the ‘Lodh’ caste, a Scheduled Tribe.
Fifteen years later, in 2007, certain incumbents in the Bandi Rakshak category sought transfers on the strength of forged orders. The then Director General, Jail Administration and Reformation Services, U.P., directed physical verification of all documents submitted by incumbents in that category at the time of entry into service.
The District Magistrate, Lucknow, vide communication dated 11 July 2007, informed the department that no such caste certificate had been issued by the concerned officer to Singh. An inadvertent reference to ‘Scheduled Caste’ in that letter was corrected by a corrigendum dated 19 July 2007. A further inquiry by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri — where Singh was a permanent resident — relying on a report of the Tehsildar, Bhogaon, dated 13 August 2007, established that no person belonging to the ‘Lodh’ caste resided in Singh's village and that he was ‘Lodhi’ by caste. Neither of these verification outcomes was ever challenged by Singh before any forum.
The Dismissal Proceedings and the Writ Petition
Once the caste certificate was found to be forged and fabricated, Respondent No. 3, the Senior Superintendent, Mandal Karagar, Moradabad, issued a show-cause notice on 1 August 2007 calling upon Singh to explain his conduct. Singh's reply of 12 August 2007 requested further time and asked for a full-fledged inquiry but did not categorically deny having submitted the caste certificate.
Personal hearing opportunities were extended on multiple occasions. A notice dated 24 October 2007 fixed 6 November 2007 for personal hearing; Singh did not appear. A final opportunity was published in the local daily Dainik Jagran in its Moradabad and Agra editions on 17 and 18 November 2007, fixing 23 November 2007 at 11 AM. Singh again did not respond. The Senior Superintendent then passed the dismissal order on 28 November 2007. An FIR being Case Crime No. 1289 of 2007 under Sections 420, 468, 467 and 471 IPC was also registered at Police Station Civil Lines Sadar, District Moradabad.
Singh filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 585 of 2008 before a Single Judge, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the dismissal order of 28 November 2007.
What the Single Judge Held
The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 1 July 2008, quashed the dismissal and directed the State to give Singh continuity in service along with all other benefits including seniority and arrears of salary. The Single Judge reasoned on three grounds. First, that proceedings initiated after 15 to 16 years of appointment were unwarranted. Second, that alleged misconduct at the time of entry into service did not amount to misconduct during service, and that dismissal without issuing a chargesheet and conducting formal disciplinary proceedings was contrary to law. Third, that ‘Lodhi’ and ‘Lodh’ are synonyms, and that Singh therefore belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and was entitled to the benefit of reservation.
The Division Bench's Reasoning
The Division Bench, in its judgment authored by Justice Vivek Saran, identified a single controlling issue: whether a detailed disciplinary inquiry was required before the dismissal order could be passed.
The forged certificate was not merely incorrect information. The bench drew a sharp distinction between a certificate containing incorrect information and a certificate that was never issued at all. Singh had not merely furnished a misleading document; he had submitted a document that the verification authority found was fabricated entirely. Singh's own letter of 22 June 2007 to the Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Moradabad, had acknowledged belonging to the ‘Lodh’/‘Lodhi’ caste and had requested the authority to ignore the Lucknow Tehsildar's certificate — itself an implicit admission that such a certificate had been filed. His reply of 12 August 2007 to the show-cause notice contained no categorical denial of having submitted the certificate. The bench therefore rejected Singh's stand before the writ court that he had not submitted any caste certificate.
No reservation benefit without a valid caste certificate. The bench held that no rule or authority permitted a candidate to claim the benefit of reservation in public employment without submitting a caste certificate. Since a certificate had been submitted and since that certificate was found forged, Singh had played fraud in securing the appointment.
Fraud vitiates the appointment itself. The bench applied the settled legal position that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, making the appointment order of 8 August 1992 illegal and non-est. It relied on the Supreme Court's observations in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, where it was reiterated that “fraud unravels everything” and no judgment or order can stand if obtained by fraud. It also relied on Union of India and others v. Prohlad Guha for the proposition that fraud is established by conduct and that once a post is held by playing fraud, the incumbent is not to be regarded as holding a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution.
The bench further drew on R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors. ((2004) 2 SCC 105), where the Supreme Court had dealt with an identical situation of a person obtaining appointment to a reserved post by submitting a false caste certificate. That bench held that such a person “cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.” A similar position was taken in State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, ((2009) 13 SCC 600), where the Supreme Court held that where commission of fraud is categorically proved, compliance with principles of natural justice is not required.
Delay does not validate fraud. The bench rejected the Single Judge's reasoning that proceedings taken after 15 to 16 years were unwarranted. It held that limitation does not run in cases of fraud and that the action could only be initiated once the fraud surfaced — which in this case was when the Director General ordered verification in 2007 following the detection of other forged documents. Belated verification cannot validate a fraud committed at the time of entry into service.
No entitlement to salary for the period of fraudulent service. The bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma, approving the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, to the effect that statutory rights to salary, pension and other service benefits spring from a valid and legal appointment. Once the appointment is found illegal and non-est, no statutory entitlement to salary or consequential benefits can arise.
The Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction on the caste question. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge, exercising jurisdiction in service matters, had exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating the classification of castes and holding ‘Lodhi’ and ‘Lodh’ to be synonyms. That finding was, in any event, rendered irrelevant by the prior finding that the caste certificate itself was forged — irrespective of what caste Singh actually belonged to, the certificate he used was never issued by any authority.
Outcome
The Division Bench allowed Special Appeal No. 301 of 2014. The judgment and order dated 1 July 2008 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 585 of 2008 was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. The dismissal order dated 28 November 2007 passed by the Senior Superintendent, Mandal Karagar, Moradabad, was affirmed.
On the question of recovery, the bench noted that Singh had worked during the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench without any interim order in his favour. The bench directed that salary and other emoluments already paid to Singh for that period of work shall not be recovered from him.