State Of U.P. And Others vs Ranveer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 301 of 2014
State of U.P. and others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
Ranveer Singh
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Rai A.c.s.c.
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Narendra Kumar Maurya, P.k.
Chauhan, R.a. Verma, Yogendra
Kumar
A.F.R.
Reserved on:13.05.2026
Delivered on: 17.07.2026
In Chamber
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
(Per:Hon’ble Vivek Saran, J.)
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri V.K. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narendra Kumar Maurya, Advocate
for the respondent.
2. The instant intra-court special appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 01.07.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.585 of 2008 (Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others)

2
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
by which the learned Single Judge has quashed the termination
order dated 28.11.2007 of the petitioner and has directed the
respondent/appellant to give him continuity in service alongwith all
other benefits including the seniority and arrears of salary.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as
Bandi Rakshak on 08.08.1992 under the reserved category of
‘Scheduled Tribe’ and thereafter he worked till the year 2007 when
certain incumbents on strength of forged orders sought change of
their Division. The then Director General, Jail Administration and
Services, U.P. vide his letter dated 02.07.2007 directed physical
verification of all the documents which had been submitted by the
incumbents in Bandi Rakshak category at the time of entering into
services to be verified. Thereafter the documents including the caste
certificate of the petitioner by which reservation to the post was
claimed were verified. The District Magistrate, Lucknow vide his
communication dated 11.07.2007 informed that no such caste
certificate was issued by the concerned officer to the petitioner but
inadvertently in the said letter it was mentioned as ‘Scheduled
Caste’ instead of ‘Scheduled Tribe’ which was corrected vide
corrigendum letter dated 19.07.2007. Thereafter, the caste of
petitioner as belonging to ‘Lodh’ caste was also verified from the
office of District Magistrate, Mainpuri, where the petitioner was a
permanent resident of and vide his letter dated 19.07.2007 the then

3
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
District Magistrate informed on the basis of the report of the
Tehsildar, Bhogaon dated 13.08.2007 that in the aforesaid village no
person belonging to ‘Lodh’ caste resided and the petitioner was
‘Lodhi’ by caste. Once it was ascertained that the caste certificate
was a forged and fabricated document then the respondent no.3 vide
notice dated 01.08.2007 called upon the petitioner explaining his
conduct of entering in services by playing fraud. The petitioner,
however vide reply dated 12.08.2007 sought further time but
thereafter did not appeared in the proceeding inspite of opportunity
of personal hearing being afforded vide letter dated 28.11.2007 and
publication of notice in the daily newspaper ‘ Dainik Jagran ’ finally
by order dated 28.11.007 passed by Senior Superintendent, Mandal
Karagar, Moradabad, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
And the appellant/respondent also lodged an FIR dated 25.07.2007
being Case Crime No.1289 of 2007 under Sections 420, 468, 467,
471 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Sadar, District Moradabad.
The petitioner/respondent approached this Court by filing a writ
petition with following relief(s):
“a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Senior Superintendent, Mandal
Karagar, Moradabad/Appointing Authority/Respondent No.3.
b)issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem
to be fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
c) award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

4
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
4. The learned Single Judge in his judgment has proceeded to hold
that as the petitioner was appointed as ‘ Bandi Rakshak ’ vide order
dated 08.08.1992 and therefore, proceeding being taken up after 15-
16 years were unwarranted. The learned Single Judge further held
that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner was while entering into
the service, therefore, it was not a misconduct during his service
and the action of the State without following proper procedure like
issuance of chargesheet and disciplinary proceedings was contrary
to law and no action against him could have been taken only on a
show cause notice dated 01.08.2007. Learned Single Judge has
further proceeded to hold that the petitioner belong to ‘Lodhi’ caste
and ‘Lodh’ and ‘Lodhi’ are synonyms to each other as there was
nothing on record to demonstrate otherwise, therefore the petitioner
belonged to ‘Scheduled Tribe’ thereby was entitled of benefit of
reservation.
5. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant before this
Court in appeal is that the petitioner was appointed as Bandi
Rakshak vide order dated 08.08.1992 by a special drive taken up for
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. He submits that for
claiming the benefit of reservation in employment, the petitioner
had submitted a caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar Sadar,
Kaisar Bagh, Lucknow, certifying as belonging to ‘Lodh’ caste and
was member of ‘Scheduled Tribe’, it was this certificate which on

5
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
verification was found to be forged and fabricated, as not been
issued by any Authority. He further submitted that once the caste
certificate of the petitioner was found to be forged then the
petitioner had no right to hold the post of Bandi Rakshak as he has
sought appointment by playing fraud and it is settled law that fraud
vitiates all solemn acts. He further submitted that the petitioner has
not challenged the order/report by which caste certificate of the
petitioner/respondent was found to be forged and fabricated before
any court and is had attained finality and under such circumstances
the dismissal order, impugned by the petitioner was absolutely
justified. He further submits that neither the delay in getting the
verification of records will not ipso facto extinguish the right of the
respondents to verify the records submitted by the
petitioners/respondents for procuring the appointment nor would
operate as an estopple. He further submitted even otherwise,
limitation would run from the time fraud played by the petitioners
came to be known. He further submitted that the learned Single
Judge had traveled beyond its jurisdiction by adjudicating the issue
of caste and holding that ‘Lodhi’ and ‘Lodh’ caste are synonyms
and were a scheduled tribe, as the learned Single Judge while
hearing the matter was having a jurisdiction in ‘service matters’
alone and not other misc. matters.

6
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
6. Per contra , the learned Senior Court representing the
petitioner/respondent had with vehemence submitted that the
finding returned by the learned Single Judge are based on cogent
reasons and do not require any inference in appeal. He further
submits that the petitioner had already worked for a substantial
length and any action would be determined in his interest.
7. Heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
8. The sole issue before this Court in the appeal is as to whether a
detailed disciplinary enquiry was required to be conducted prior to
passing of the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service?
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on
08.08.1992 under the ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category by the
respondents. The petitioner thus in order to seek benefit of
reservation must establish that he belonged to scheduled tribe or
otherwise would be ineligible for the post.
10. It is also not in dispute that the outcome of verification of the
caste certificate of the petitioner as communicated vide letter dated
11.07.2007 of the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the
corrigendum letter dated 19.07.2007 and also the outcome of
enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, as
communicated vide letter dated 19.09.2007 of the SDM, Mainpuri
was never challenged by the petitioner and thus their correctness

7
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
have became final. In the writ petition the only relief prayed was for
quashing of the order dated 28.11.2007 by which the petitioner was
dismissed from service.
11. Before this Court in the writ petition, the petitioner/respondent
had denied submission of the caste certificate. This stand before this
Court may have been taken by the writ petition in order to nullify
the effect of the verification of his caste certificate. From the record
this Court finds that the petitioner/respondent by letter dated
22.06.2007 to the Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Moradabad
had stated that he belonged to ‘Lodh’ caste, also called as ‘Lodhi’
and which is scheduled tribe and requested the Authority to
consider it and to ignore the caste certificate issued by Tehsildar,
Lucknow. The relevant extract of letter of petitioner/respondent is
reproduced below:
“
अतःश्रीमानजीसेनिवेदनहैकि प्रार्थीकेद्वाराभेजेगयेतहसीलभोगॉव

जिलामैनपुरीद्वाराजारीप्रमाणपत्रकोहीमान्यतादीजाये औरपूर्वमे

जारीनगरलखनऊतहसीलद्वाराप्रमाणपत्रकोमान्यतानदीजाये

तथायदिप्रार्थीकेविरूद्धकोईकार्यवाहीकीजायेतोउसेप्रार्थीकोपूर्वमें
"
लिखितरूपमेंसूचितकरनेकीकृपाकरें।
12. And even in reply dated 12.08.2007 of the petitioner there is no
categorical denial of the submission of the caste certificate by the
petitioner.
13. We find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel
for the State/Appellant that unless a caste certificate was furnished

8
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
by the petition, no benefit of reservation could have been claimed or
given in public employment. Learned counsel for the
petitioner/respondent has not been able to show any such rule or
authority to the effect that the petitioner/respondent could have
claimed the benefit of reservation in public employment without
submitting a caste certificate. Thus, the denial by the petitioner
before this Court of not having submitted the caste certificate
cannot be accepted.
14. The inevitable consequence on finding the caste certificate as
forged and fabricated document (as not being issued by the
authority) would be that the petitioner had played fraud in securing
the appointment under the reserved category and he would be
ineligible to the post and the appointment order dated 08.08.1992
would be an illegal order.
15. It is settled law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and therefore,
the appointment so sought by the petitioner on the basis of fraud
becomes void ab initio and non-est . Any order which is de-hors the
constitutional provision is an illegal order.
16. Hon’ble Supreme Court inre: United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
1
v. Rajendra Singh reiterated that fraud unravels everything and
has observed as follows:-
“3. Fraud and justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam
cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these
centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that
1 2000(3) SCC 581

9
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
“no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it
has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything………...”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court inre : Union of India and others v.
2
Prohlad Guha has held that fraud is established by the conduct of
the person committing it, which may be evidenced through words.
It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
India (Supra) that once a post is held by playing fraud then the
incumbent would not be said to be holding a post within the
meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Relevant
paragraph of the judgment is as follows:
“20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in
any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of
human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer,
Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ‘wing me into the easy-hearted
man and trap him into snares’. It has been defined as an act of
trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary
fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or
concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against
conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as
being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is
defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of
inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing
belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of
a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have
been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford
Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false
representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick.
According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed
to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the
material date false in substance and in fact. …From dictionary
meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role
of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he
succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be
true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of a fact with
knowledge that it was false.
…..The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law,
as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises
from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts
knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and
procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865

10
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have
been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation
to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-
existence of which power can be exercised.”
13.1 The words of Denning L.J. in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley are
of importance qua the impact of fraud. He wrote – “…..I cannot
accede to this argument for a moment. No Court in this land will
allow a person to keep an advantage he has obtained by fraud. No
judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if
it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The Court
is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved;
but once it is proved, it vitiates judgment, contract and all
transactions whatsoever….”
13.2 ‘Fraud’ is conduct expressed by letter or by word, inducing the
other party to take a definite stand as a response to the conduct of the
doer of such fraud. [See; Derry v. Peek; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.
Board of High School of Intermediate Education]
13.3 In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors., a Bench of
three learned Judges observed that a person who held a post which he
had obtained by fraud, could not be said to be holding a post within
the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In this case, a
person who was not a member of Scheduled Castes, obtained a false
certificate of belonging to such category and, as a result thereof, was
appointed to a position in the Indian Police Service reserved for
applicants from such category.
14. The above discussion reiterates that fraud vitiates all proceedings.
Compassionate appointment is granted to those persons whose
families are left deeply troubled or destitute by the primary
breadwinner either having been incapacitated or having passed away.
So when persons seeking appointment on such ground attempt to
falsely establish their eligibility, as has been done in this case, such
positions cannot be allowed to be retained. So far as the submission
of non-compliance of the Rules is concerned, the judgment in
Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) answers the question. The respondent-
employees in the present case, having obtained their position by
fraud, would not be considered to be holding a post for the purpose of
the protections under the Constitution. We are supported in this
conclusion by the observations made in Devendra Kumar v. State of
Uttaranchal18. In paragraph 25 thereof it was observed –
“25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance
with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot
sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus — a
foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A
person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his
own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the
lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the
legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria
sua propria applies. The persons violating the law
cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be
subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Union
of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav [(1996) 4
SCC 127 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 592 : AIR 1996 SC 1340] and
Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 1056] .) Nor can a person claim any right
arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non
oritur).

11
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
(Emphasis supplied)
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court inre: Vishwanatha Pillai v. State
3
of Kerala & Ors . (2004) 2 SCC 105 has held that once a post is
held by playing fraud then the incumbent would not be said to be
holding a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution
of India. Relevant paragraph no.15 of the judgment is quoted
hereunder:
“This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the
basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found
by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste
community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His
appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right
to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by
playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant
can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim
the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution.
As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he
cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of
Article 311 of the Constitution of India………….. ”
19. A similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
inre : State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Dhirjo Kumar
4
Sengar . The relevant observations are in paragraph 19 of the
judgment which is as follows:
“19. The respondent keeping in view the constitutional scheme has
not only committed a fraud on the Department but also committed a
fraud on the Constitution. As commission of fraud by him has
categorically been proved, in our opinion, the principles of natural
justice were not required to be complied with.”
20. In the case in hand the petitioner has not obtained a valid
certificate by furnishing incorrect information but he has altogether
furnished a forged and fabricated certificate which was never
issued.
3 (2004) 2 SCC 105
4 (2009) 13 SCC 600

12
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
21. The respondents issued notice dated 01.08.2007 to the petitioner
to submit his explanation. The petitioner/respondent in response to
the same submitted his reply dated 12.08.2007 wherein he stated to
belong to ‘Lodhi’ caste which in Mainpuri is a scheduled tribe and
requested to drop the proceedings and also stated that a full fledged
inquiry be conducted and he be given all documents but did not
categorically replied to the show cause notice. Thereafter again by
notice dated 19.10.2007 another notice was issued attending
personal hearing to the petitioner fixing 06.11.2007, this letter was
issued on 24.10.2007 but he did not come. Thus given a last
opportunity to the petitioner/respondent a notice was got published
in the local daily Dainik Jagran, in its Moradabad and Agra Editions
on 17.11.2007 and 18.11.2007 respectively indicating the date fixed
as 23.11.2007 at 11 AM. However, the petitioner did not respond
and consequently on 23.11.2007 the order impugned was passed.
There was no requirement to initiate any departmental disciplinary
proceedings prior to passing of the order as the appointment order
dated 08.08.1992 being an illegal order.
22. Further the question regarding delay in getting the verification
itself cannot be detrimental or have not an impact on the issue of
fraud as it is settled day that limitation in the event of fraud do not
run and moreover when the fraud itself is surfaced, only then the
action can be initiated against the incumbent. In the instant case

13
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
although no verification of records of the petitioner were not
conducted in the year 1992 that is while entering into service but
subsequently in the year 2007 when other forged documents
regarding transfer were furnished, the Director General directed
verification of the records and such a verification of records
belatedly cannot validate a fraud committed by the petitioner.
23. Hon’ble Supreme Court inre: State of Bihar v. Devendra
5
Sharma while dealing with issue of entitlement of salary and other
benefits to an incumbent whose appointment is found to be obtained
by fraud approving the Full Bench decision of Patna High Court
vide its paragraph no.37 has held that:
“37) Such judgment of the Full Bench was approved by three Judge Bench
of this Court in a Judgment reported R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of
Kerala & Ors.((2004) 2 SCC 105: 2004 SCC (L & S) 350. This Court held
as under:
“17. The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High
Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education (1987 SCC OnLine
Pat 159). The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public
servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite
the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The
Full Bench held:
“13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension and
other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service.
Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid
and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very
appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of the law, no statutory
entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other
monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if the very appointment is rested
on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it.”
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the
considerate opinion that as the petitioner had practiced fraud in
seeking his appointment under the reserved category and as the
result of the verification of his caste certificate had attained finality
5 MANU/SC/1441/2019

14
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
as not being challenged before any forum. The order of appointment
dated 08.08.1992 is illegal and non-nest and the
respondent/appellant have rightly adopted the procedure of issuing
notice to the petitioner/respondent to show cause, prior to passing
the order impugned. The issue is thus decided accordingly.
25. We find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel
that the learned Single Judge who was having jurisdiction of
‘service matters’ has exceeded his jurisdiction by entering into the
classification of caste vis-a-vis ‘Lodhi’ and ‘Lodh’ and thereafter
holding both as synonyms and entitling the petitioner to seek
benefit of reservation.
26. With due regards we find that the judgments relied up by the
learned Single Judge are not applicable in the facts of case of the
petitioner/respondent, as his appointment was obtained by
practicing fraud.
27. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussions, appeal succeeds and
is allowed . The judgment and order 01.07.2008 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.585 of 2008
(Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others) is hereby set aside and
the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. The order impugned
dated 28.11.2007 is affirmed.
28. Since the petitioner has worked during the pendency of the
appeal before this Court without there being any interim order

15
SPLA No. - 301 of 2014
therefore the salary and other emoluments already paid to the
petitioner, pursuant to his working, shall not be recovered.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
July 17, 2026
Deepika
Digitally signed by :-
DEEPIKA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad