No opportunity of hearing required in fake appointment case: DB

No opportunity of hearing required in fake appointment case: DB

SRINAGAR, May 31: High Court has upheld the termination of four employees of the Forest Department as they were working on fake appointment orders and observed that no opportunity of being heard is required when appointment is obtained on fake and forged orders.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice M Y Wani dismissed the plea of these employees by recording that they have not been able to demonstrate that their appointment orders were genuine.

The respondents, on the contrary, have categorically demonstrated that forged orders were produced by them for securing appointment. “Any appointment obtained by an employee on the basis of a fake/forged appointment order, is in fact, no appointment in the eyes of law and any such appointment would not vest any right in the employee to continue with the employment,” DB said.

“Where appointment is obtained on the basis of fake/forged orders, no opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the delinquent employee and in such cases, there is even no necessity of issuing any termination order, as in law there is no appointment”, DB added.

Since these employees were acquitted by the trial court in FIR for commission of forgery but the High Court said that mere acquittal in a criminal case would not make the forged/fake appointment orders genuine.

Also Read: Scolding Based on Complaint Not Grounds for Abetment to Suicide Under IPC 306: Supreme Court

“The finding of the criminal court is only with regard to the culpability of the accused in respect of commission of offence. A perusal of the judgment of acquittal dated 24.12.2010, recorded by the Principal Sessions Judge, Shopian, reveals that the trial court has observed that no witness has stated that he has seen the accused bringing the order and working in the Forest Department. The trial court has nowhere recorded the finding that the orders of appointment of the petitioners were genuine”, DB said.

The High Court has agreed with the submission of Sr. AAG Mohsin Qadri, who argued that the case of the petitioners is distinct and they cannot draw parity qua the other officials whose appointment orders are not available. Because in the case of the petitioners, the appointment orders were available, but were found to be fake.

Court has been informed that during scrutiny of the orders submitted by the petitioners, the same were found to be fake and fabricated. The order produced by petitioner Mohammad Amin Ganai actually pertained to regularization of one Farooq Ahmad Lone S/o Mohammad Rustum Lone R/o Surigam Lolab as Mali, order No.769 of 1997 dated 07.04.1997 produced by petitioner Gulzar Ahmad Bhat pertained to the appointment of one Bashir Ahmad Najar S/o Muhammad Ramzan Najar R/o Doriwari Tehsil Chadoora as Watcher, order No.205 of 1998 dated 04.08.1998 produced by petitioner Shahnawaz Abid Sheikh actually pertained to the sanction of 28 days earned leave in favour of one Firdous Ahmad Bhat Watcher by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir and order No.1235 of 1998 dated 19.03.1998 produced by petitioner No.4 actually pertained to regularization of one Khurshid Ahmad Malik S/o Sarandaz Malik R/o Model Town Sopore, as Orderly.

The actual facts came to know after a complaint was filed against the petitioners alleging that they had obtained appointment on the basis of fabricated orders, as a result of which an FIR was registered and after the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners.

About the Author

Daily Excelsior