Recovery of benefits obtained through fake certificates is permissible despite retirement, as fraud vitiates all claims to equity.

The applicant was appointed as an Inker Feeder in 1998 and later promoted to Book Binder in 2010.

Pursuant to a 2019 Government Order implementing a High Court judgment, the applicant was granted a higher pay scale under SRO 149 of 1973 based on a National Apprenticeship Certificate he submitted.

He received arrears totaling approximately Rs. 28 lakhs after furnishing an affidavit undertaking to refund the amount if the certificate was found fake.

In 2021, just prior to his retirement, a verification by the Director of Skill Development revealed the certificate was fictitious, as the certificate number belonged to another individual and had been cancelled in 2019.

Respondent No. 2 issued Order No. 292 on 08.11.2021 directing the recovery of the disbursed arrears and enhanced salary.

The applicant challenged this recovery on grounds of lack of due process and hardship.

1. Whether the recovery of monetary benefits obtained through a fake certificate is permissible when initiated at the end of an employee's career.

2. Whether the lack of a full-fledged departmental enquiry vitiates the recovery process if the employee was provided an opportunity to respond to the verification report.

The Tribunal applied the fundamental legal maxim that "fraud vitiates every solemn act," precluding the creation of any vested right from forged documents.

Statement identifying the principle that while recovery from retired/low-paid employees is generally restricted in cases of employer mistake, such protection is unavailable where the benefit was obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.

The case also relied on the contractual obligation created by the applicant’s indemnity affidavit.

Administrative verification from an issuing authority was held as a valid basis for action under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's eligibility for the higher pay scale was strictly conditional upon possessing a valid certificate.

Upon verification, the issuing authority categorically confirmed the document was fake, a finding the applicant failed to rebut with credible evidence.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's plea of "natural justice" violations, noting that he was served a memo and allowed to submit a reply, which constituted sufficient opportunity to be heard in an administrative recovery matter.

The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant had voluntarily signed an affidavit undertaking the risk of recovery if his credentials were found wanting.

It held that the "hardship" rule for retiring employees does not apply to cases of fraud, as equity operates in favor of the public exchequer when state funds are withdrawn without lawful entitlement.

The court answered that detected fraud overrides the timing of retirement, and public money cannot be retained by a person who failed to establish lawful entitlement.

The interim stay was vacated, and respondents were granted liberty to recover the full amount of Rs. 14,01,398/- (arrears) and Rs. 14,30,748/- (enhanced salary) in a reasonable manner as per rules.