- (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.1.90 (Annexure 3) discharging petitioner from service.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had applied for the post of Constable in Armed Police in pursuance of an advertisement and he was appointed on a probation for a period of two years vide order dated 9.9.89. While petitioner was undergoing the training in Rajasthan Police Training College, his character was verified and it came to the knowledge of the appointing authority that he had been involved in two criminal cases. Petitioner, when confronted by the authorities for suppressing the material fact, disclosed that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and, therefore, it could not be held that he was involved in the criminal cases. THE Competent Authority considered the plea taken by petitioner and passed the impugned order. Hence this writ petition. Petitioner himself has filed a copy of the judgment and order dated 21.11.90 (Annexure 6) showing that he had been involved in criminal case No. 135/ 1989 under Sec.147 352 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and he had been put on trial. Petitioner was given the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act,1958") and he was released on furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 2000/-. Column 17 of the Application Form made it mandatory for the applicant to furnish the information whether the candidate had ever been involved in any criminal case and if `yes':- (i) whether candidate had been prosecuted in Court; (ii) whether he had ever been arrested in connection with the criminal case; and (iii) whether he had been sentenced in the criminal case ? Petitioner had given reply in negative to all the three querries. The case of Mr. Vinod Purohit is that as the offences had been compounded before the trial court and the trial court had given him the benefit of the Act, 1958, and none of the said offences involved moral turpitude, petitioner cannot be found non-suited on that ground. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets the appointment by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such appointment cannot be sustained. (Vide S.P. Changulvaraiha Naidu vs. Jagannathn and others (1). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. vs. Besalay (2), it has categorically been held that anything obtained by misrepresentation of fraud, cannot be allowed to be sustained.
(3.) IN Andhra State Financial Corporation vs. Gar Re: Rolling Mills (3) and State of Maharastra and others vs. Prabhu, (4), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a writ Court,while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafy evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law." The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the impugned orders could not have been passed without giving petitioner an opportunity of hearing,is, also, preposterous for the reason that in such case where an order is obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, the principles of natural justice are not attracted to rectify the mistake which the Authority had com- mitted because of the fraud played by the applicant. In U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee vs. B.Shital Nandwani (5), the students had got admission in M.B.B.S. Course by making misrepresentation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of applicability of the Rules of Natural Justice observing that under the circumstances in which such benefit had been taken by the candidates concerned, do not justify attraction of the Rules of Natural Justice by providing them an opportunity of hearing. Even in a case where an applicant may not be responsible for playing fraud, his appointment can, also, be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing to him in case the Authority comes to the conclusion that the appointment had been made by playing fraud by the Members of the Selection Committee thou- gh the candidate had not played any part/ mischief in the said selection. In Krishna Yadav vs. State of Haryana (6), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when the entire selection was strinking `conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit,"individual's innocence has no place as fraud enravels everything. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitions on their behalf. In Union of India vs. M. Bhaskaran (7), the Apex Court has observed as under:- "If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same can- not be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer." ;