Termination based on a university-disowned qualification stands without enquiry where no real prejudice is shown.

The applicant was engaged as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher at Government New Primary School, Karkhana, Zone Malhar, on 22 March 2003 and was subsequently regularized as a General Line Teacher on 4 September 2009 after completing five years of service.

During verification of his educational credentials, the Chief Education Officer sought confirmation from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU).

IGNOU reported that although the applicant was enrolled in its Bachelor Degree Programme, he had not completed it and that the Statement of Marks bearing No. 0015559 dated 2 October 2006 had not been issued by the University.

Following departmental recommendations and approval by the Director, School Education, the Chief Education Officer, Kathua, terminated the applicant’s services ab initio by order dated 29 October 2021 on the ground that he had relied upon a false educational document to obtain employment.

The applicant challenged the termination, principally contending that no show-cause notice, charge-sheet, departmental enquiry, or opportunity of hearing had been provided, and sought reinstatement, consequential benefits, and unpaid salary.

Whether the applicant’s termination on the basis of IGNOU’s verification that the relied-upon Statement of Marks was not issued by the University was liable to be set aside merely because no regular departmental enquiry or prior opportunity of hearing was granted?

Whether the applicant’s long service and prior regularization created a right to continue in employment despite the issuing University disowning the educational document forming the basis of his appointment?

Whether the applicant was entitled to arrears of salary allegedly unpaid from May 2019 until termination?

The Tribunal recognized the general rule that imposition of a major penalty upon a regular government employee for alleged misconduct ordinarily requires compliance with the applicable service rules, including the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, and the principles of natural justice.

It applied the “useless formality” principle discussed by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237, under which failure to hold an enquiry may not invalidate administrative action where the relevant facts are admitted or indisputable and a further hearing could not reasonably produce a different outcome.

The Tribunal also relied upon UT of J&K v. Roshan Din, WP(C) No. 1644/2025, decided on 18 September 2025, where the High Court held that a disciplinary enquiry is unnecessary when verification conclusively establishes that an educational document relied upon for appointment is false and the employee cannot demonstrate how an enquiry would alter the result.

It further applied the principle that a qualification essential to eligibility for public employment cannot be validated by length of service or subsequent regularization when the issuing institution disowns the document.

The Tribunal held that the termination was not based merely on departmental suspicion or an internal assessment; it rested on direct verification from IGNOU, the institution purportedly issuing the qualification.

IGNOU confirmed both that the applicant had not completed the Bachelor Degree Programme and that the specific Statement of Marks had not been issued by it.

Although the applicant denied submitting a fake certificate, he produced no contrary confirmation from IGNOU or other material demonstrating that the University’s verification was erroneous.

Applying M.C. Mehta and Roshan Din, the Tribunal concluded that a formal departmental enquiry would not have altered the decisive documentary position and that requiring one would amount to an empty formality.

The applicant’s prolonged service and regularization did not cure the foundational defect in his eligibility, since the educational qualification was central to his appointment and the document relied upon was disowned by its purported issuing authority.

The separate salary claim was not adjudicated for want of sufficient material establishing the precise period and amount due, although the respondents were directed not to withhold salary already accrued for duties actually performed, if otherwise admissible under the rules.

It dismissed O.A. No. 1915/2021, declined reinstatement and consequential reliefs, and held that the absence of a formal departmental enquiry did not warrant interference because the issuing University’s verification conclusively undermined the applicant’s educational credential and no real prejudice was shown.

The Tribunal left any valid claim for salary already accrued for actual service to be determined by the respondents in accordance with the service record and applicable rules.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.