Fraudulent regularization lacking proof of prior service confers no indefeasible right to employment.

The seven applicants claimed they were engaged as substitute Safai Karamcharis and later converted to daily wagers w.e.f. 31.03.1998

Their services were purportedly regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2004 via an order dated 04.08.2021, and they received salaries until October 2021

The respondents abruptly stopped salary payments in November 2021 and subsequently issued a Show Cause Notice alleging unauthorized absence, followed by an order dated 19.04.2023 which cancelled their regularization

The applicants had previously approached the Tribunal (O.A. No. 1865/2022) and the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 3991/2024), ultimately obtaining liberty to challenge the termination order

The applicants relied on internal note-sheets and conduct reports signed by a Sanitation Superintendent to prove their service history

Conversely, the respondents alleged that the regularization was obtained through fraud and a misleading note-sheet initiated by the Sanitation Superintendent, against whom an FIR was lodged

1. Whether the cancellation of the regularization order dated 19.04.2023 was legally sustainable in light of the allegations of fraud and lack of service records

2. Whether the applicants established an indefeasible right to appointment and reinstatement based on their claimed service from 1998 to 2021

The court primarily considered Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding the challenge to service termination

It applied the principle that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the factum of employment through credible documentary evidence, such as bank statements, salary slips, or relieving orders, especially when the employer disputes the existence of such service

Furthermore, it implicitly relied on the legal doctrine that fraud vitiates solemn acts, justifying the withdrawal of benefits obtained through misrepresentation or forgery

The Tribunal examined the conflicting claims regarding the applicants' employment history. While the applicants relied on an internal recommendation note dated 10.02.2021, the respondents demonstrated that this note was fraudulent, leading to criminal proceedings (FIR) against the concerned official

The respondents' verification process revealed that the applicants had never worked for the organization prior to August 2021 and that vouchers had been forged to insert their names

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that despite being given multiple opportunities, the applicants failed to produce any objective evidence—such as bank statements showing salary credits or relieving slips—to substantiate their long-term service claim

The court reasoned that since the regularization was founded upon a fraudulent note and the applicants could not prove they ever worked for the MCD during the claimed period, no legal right to the posts existed

The court found that the regularization order dated 20.07.2021 was obtained fraudulently based on a misleading note-sheet and that the applicants provided no proof of service in the organization

Consequently, the relief for quashing the cancellation order and seeking reinstatement with back wages was denied