Smt. Krishna Bai vs The State Of M.P. Through The Principal Secretary, Woman And Child Developent Department

1 WP-4064-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4064 of 2013
CNR No.: MPHC030115822013
SMT. KRISHNA BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divakar Vyas, Advocate appeared for petitioner.
Shri K S Tomar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the learned
Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the
learned Additional Collector, District Guna, was dismissed. By the order
dated 25.08.2012, the appeal preferred by respondent No.4, Smt. Batan Bai,
was allowed and her termination order dated 24.09.2011 from the post of
Anganwadi Karyakarta was set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 had
applied for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta in the year
1994 and, in her application, she specifically mentioned that she had passed
Class V. On the basis of the said educational qualification, the concerned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 02-11-2026
11:16:51

2 WP-4064-2013
Gram Panchayat passed a resolution recommending her appointment, and

accordingly, she was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta vide
order dated 27.11.1994. It is further submitted that subsequently, the
petitioner came to know that respondent No.4 had obtained the appointment
by producing a forged mark sheet of Class V. The petitioner, therefore, made
complaints to the concerned authorities, pursuant to which an enquiry was
conducted by the Supervisor of the concerned area. On the basis of the
enquiry, the services of respondent No.4 were terminated vide order dated
24.09.2011. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.4
challenged the termination order by filing an appeal before the learned
Additional Collector. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner
also submitted an application seeking her impleadment as a party, but the
said application was rejected. Thereafter, the learned Additional Collector,
vide order dated 25.08.2012, allowed the appeal preferred by respondent
No.4 and set aside her termination order.
3. It is contended that the learned Additional Collector failed to
properly appreciate the material available on record, particularly the report of
the Education Officer, according to which the mark sheet produced by
respondent No.4 was not available in the original records. It is also submitted
that merely because respondent No.4 was acquitted by the criminal Court, the
departmental authorities could not have ignored the material collected during
the departmental enquiry, as the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry
is different from that in a criminal trial. Learned counsel submits that the
learned Additional Commissioner also failed to consider the grounds raised
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 02-11-2026
11:16:51

3 WP-4064-2013
by the petitioner in the appeal and mechanically dismissed the same vide

order dated 22.03.2013. It is, therefore, prayed that both the impugned orders
be set aside and the original termination order dated 24.09.2011 be restored.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents oppose
the petition and support the orders passed by both the authorities. It is
submitted that the learned Additional Collector considered the relevant facts
and material available on record and rightly found that the termination of
respondent No.4 was not sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that
the allegation regarding submission of a forged mark sheet was not
established against respondent No.4. The criminal proceedings arising out of
the same allegations also resulted in her acquittal by the competent criminal
Court vide judgment dated 21.09.2011. The authorities below rightly
considered the material available on record and granted relief to respondent
No.4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to point out any
illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the
authorities below. The learned Additional Commissioner also examined the
challenge raised by the petitioner and rightly dismissed the appeal. It is,
therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The controversy in the present case relates to the appointment of
respondent No.4 as Anganwadi Karyakarta in the year 1994 and the
subsequent allegation that she had obtained the said appointment by
producing a forged mark sheet of Class V. It is not in dispute that respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 02-11-2026
11:16:51

4 WP-4064-2013
No.4 was appointed vide order dated 27.11.1994 and that her services were

subsequently terminated vide order dated 24.09.2011 on the basis of an
enquiry conducted by the concerned authorities. The order of termination
was challenged by respondent No.4 before the competent appellate authority.
The learned Additional Collector, after considering the matter, allowed the
appeal and set aside the termination order vide order dated 25.08.2012. The
petitioner thereafter challenged the said order before the learned Additional
Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 22.03.2013.
7. The main contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 had
submitted a forged mark sheet at the time of her appointment. In support of
this contention, reliance has been placed upon the report of the Education
Officer, according to which the mark sheet in question was not available in
the original records. However, the mere fact that a particular mark sheet is
not available in the original records does not, by itself, conclusively establish
that the document produced by respondent No.4 was forged or that she had
deliberately obtained her appointment by making a false declaration. An
allegation of fraud or production of a forged educational certificate is
undoubtedly a serious allegation. However, such an allegation must be
supported by reliable material and must be established in accordance with
law. The burden cannot be discharged merely by raising suspicion or by
relying upon the absence of a document from the available records. The
authorities concerned are required to examine the entire material and record a
proper finding regarding the allegation.
8. In the present case, the learned Additional Collector considered the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 02-11-2026
11:16:51

5 WP-4064-2013
challenge raised against the termination of respondent No.4 and found the

termination order unsustainable. The petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate that the appellate authority ignored any conclusive material
establishing that respondent No.4 had submitted a forged mark sheet at the
time of her appointment. The report relied upon by the petitioner, by itself, is
not sufficient to establish the allegation of fraud. So far as the acquittal of
respondent No.4 by the criminal Court is concerned, this Court is conscious
of the settled position that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is
different from the standard of proof in departmental proceedings. An
acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate departmental
proceedings. However, the said principle does not mean that the
departmental authority can terminate the services of an employee merely on
the basis of an allegation without properly establishing the misconduct on the
basis of relevant material.
9. In the present case, the petitioner has relied upon the departmental
enquiry conducted by the Supervisor and the subsequent report of the
Education Officer. However, the petitioner has not been able to establish that
the findings recorded by the learned Additional Collector suffer from any
perversity or that the authority failed to consider any material which would
have materially changed the outcome of the appeal. The mere fact that the
petitioner relies upon certain documents in support of her allegations cannot
be a ground to substitute the view taken by the competent appellate authority
with another possible view. This Court has also considered the contention
that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the appeal preferred by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 02-11-2026
11:16:51

6 WP-4064-2013
respondent No.4 before the learned Additional Collector. However, the

petitioner has not demonstrated how the rejection of her application for
impleadment, by itself, renders the final order passed by the appellate
authority illegal. The petitioner was thereafter able to challenge the order
dated 25.08.2012 before the learned Additional Commissioner, who
examined her challenge and dismissed the appeal.
10. The learned Additional Commissioner, while passing the order
dated 22.03.2013, affirmed the decision of the learned Additional Collector.
The petitioner has not pointed out any specific jurisdictional error or material
illegality in the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner.
Merely because the appellate authority has not accepted the contentions of
the petitioner, it cannot be said that the order suffers from non-application of
mind or is otherwise arbitrary. It is also relevant to observe that respondent
No.4 was appointed to the post in the year 1994, whereas her services were
terminated in the year 2011, after a considerable period. Though the length
of service alone cannot protect an appointment obtained by fraud, the
allegation of fraud must nevertheless be established by cogent material. In
the absence of such material, the termination order cannot be sustained
merely on the basis of suspicion. The scope of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court does not sit as an
appellate authority over the findings recorded by the competent statutory
authorities. Interference is warranted only where the decision suffers from
patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of the principles
of natural justice. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 02-11-2026
11:16:51

7 WP-4064-2013
such ground.

11. Upon consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court finds that the learned Additional Collector rightly allowed
the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 and set aside the termination order
dated 24.09.2011. The learned Additional Commissioner also committed no
illegality in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated
22.03.2013. Both the authorities have passed appropriate orders, and no
sufficient ground has been made out warranting interference by this Court.
12. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in
the impugned orders dated 25.08.2012 and 22.03.2013. The writ petition,
being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 02-11-2026
11:16:51