Army Dismissal for Fraudulent Enrollment: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India & Others, addressed a significant issue regarding dismissal from military service due to fraudulent enrollment. The ruling reinforced the principle that securing employment through fraudulent means cannot be condoned and upheld the Army’s right to terminate such employment.

Background of the Case

The case involved Ex-Signalman Kanhaiya Kumar, who had been enrolled in the Indian Army on 19.01.2009 as a Sepoy/Washerman. After serving for approximately six years, he was dismissed on 13.03.2015 under Section 20(3) of the Army Act, 1950. The dismissal was based on allegations that Kumar had gained enrollment using a fake Relationship Certificate, falsely claiming his father was an ex-serviceman.

Key developments in the case:

• On 08.10.2014, a show-cause notice was issued to Kumar, asking him to explain why he should not be dismissed.
• He admitted in his reply that the Relationship Certificate submitted at the time of his enrollment was fake.
• His representation against the dismissal was rejected on 09.08.2016.
• He then filed an appeal before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which dismissed his case on 28.02.2017.
• Subsequently, he appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the dismissal order.

Key Legal Issues

• Was the dismissal under Section 20(3) of the Army Act valid?
• Could the Army exercise its general powers under Section 20(3) when Section 122(4) of the Army Act provided a specific mechanism for dealing with fraudulent enrollment?
• Did the Army authorities follow the principles of natural justice before dismissing the appellant?

Arguments by the Petitioner (Kanhaiya Kumar)

The appellant contended:

• The Army could not have dismissed him under Section 20(3) when Section 122(4) of the Army Act specifically dealt with fraudulent enrollment.
• Since three years had passed since his enrollment, the alleged fraud should have been condoned as per Army rules.
• His dismissal was excessive and should be reconsidered.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India & Others)

The Union of India defended the dismissal, arguing:

• The appellant had admitted to using a fake Relationship Certificate, which made his enrollment invalid from the outset.
• The Army has the authority to dismiss personnel found to have obtained employment through fraudulent means.
• Allowing individuals who secured jobs through fraud to remain in service would set a dangerous precedent.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the legal framework under the Army Act and previous judgments. The key observations were:

• “A person who enters service by fraud loses his legal right to continue in that service.”
• “The appellant’s admission of guilt in using a fake certificate leaves no room for reconsideration of the dismissal.”
• “The dismissal under Section 20(3) of the Army Act was justified, as fraud vitiates all proceedings and nullifies the employment itself.”

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Kanhaiya Kumar, affirming that securing employment through fraud disqualifies an individual from retaining that position. The key directives included:

• The appeal was dismissed, and the dismissal order remained valid.
• The Army’s action was deemed lawful and justified.
• The appellant had no further legal recourse, given his admission of fraud.

Key Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to several significant judgments:

• Union of India vs. M. Bhaskaran (1995): Held that employment obtained through fraudulent means is voidable.
• Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Girdharilal Yadav (2004): Reinforced that fraudulent appointments are not protected under service law.
• Ram Saran vs. IG of Police, CRPF (2006): Stressed that employees found guilty of submitting false documents should be removed from service.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for military recruitment and service regulations:

• Ensures that fraudulent enrollments are not condoned.
• Sets a precedent for strict enforcement of service integrity.
• Protects the credibility of the recruitment process.
• Reaffirms that fraudulent employment cannot be defended on grounds of procedural technicalities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India & Others underscores the strict approach taken against fraudulent enrollments in the Indian Army. By upholding the dismissal, the Court reaffirmed the principle that fraud nullifies employment, ensuring the integrity of the recruitment process.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-01-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category