JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 29.12.2005 passed by the Chief Manager, The Kisan Sahkari Sugar Mill Ltd., Ghosi, District Mau-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter called as 'the Mill'). By the order, appointment order of the petitioner has been cancelled in terms of provision of Clause 16 contained therein.
2. It appears that for the establishment of the Mill land was acquired by the State Government from the villagers of village Ghosi, Directions were issued by the State Government vide letters dated 21.2.1080; 6.7.1983 and 21.8.1989 to the effect that in case of acquisition of land of the villagers, one member of the displaced family shall be given employment on a post other than a post which falls within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission. The lands of one Sri Abdul Raseed, father of the petitioner and Sri Siddique, his real uncle were acquired.
3. The family pedigree of the petitioner is given hereunder for appreciation of the controversy involved in the case:
Saheb Ali | ................................................
4. Vacancies were advertised inviting applications for appointment in the Mills from the suitable candidate from the member of the family whose land was acquired Wali Mohd. the eldest brother of the petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement. He was given appointment I the Mill from the family of Abdul Raseed. The petitioner- Dil Mohammad also applied for service claiming himself to be son of Sri Siddique (who was in fact his real uncle). In view of an affidavit said to have been sworn by Sri Siddique stating that Dil Mohammad was his son, the petitioner was given appointment by the Mills.
5. The alleged affidavit said to have been executed by Sri Siddique, on the basis of which the petitioner was given appointment in the Mills is as under-
Saputh Patra
1. Hamki Siddique bahalaf bayan karta him ki mera nam Siddique Mere Pita ka nam Saha Wall Sakunat gram Dharauli pargana va Tahasil Ghoshi Janpad Azamgarh hai.
2. Yah ki Main Siddique bahalaf bayan karta him ki meri aaraji bhumidhari baka mauja Kishan Sahakari Chini Mill Ghoshi main le li gayee hai.
3. Yah ki Main Siddique bahalaf bayan karta him ki main bahwajah jaiki kaam karne se majboor him. Jsliye main apne ladke Dil Mohammad putra Siddique ko karya karne ke liye adhikrit kar raha him.
4. Yah ki Main Siddique bahalaf bayan karta him ki uprokta majmoon bayan halfl sahi va satya hai. Isme koi baat jhoot nahin hai aur na chipai gai hai, Khuda meri madad kare. Bamukam Tahasil Ghosi tarikh 26,11,1987 is 0,
5. Aao. No. 425 Raqba 189 kadi.
Mohd. Siddique Hastaksar Sapathkarta
6. When the petitioner started misbehaving with Sadrunishan widowed daughter-in-law and Mashian, the divorced daughter of Sri Siddique claiming the moveable and immoveable properties of Sri Siddique after his death, the fraud by the petitioner is said to have come to light. Mrs. Sadrunishan, the daughter-in-law of Sri Siddique then came to know that Dil Mohammad has obtained service in the mill by playing fraud misstating himself to be son of her father-in-law- late Sri Siddique she then made a complaint to the District Magistrate in this regard. On receipt of the complaint, the District Magistrate ordered for an enquiry and for taking action against the guilty person(s).
7. In pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate, the Chief Cane Officer of the Mill was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations vide letter dated 19.7.2004. After enquiry from the villagers, the petitioner and the complainant, report dated 13.8.2005 was submitted by the Chief Cane Officer/enquiry officer that the petitioner was, in fact, son of Sri Abdul Raseed and had obtained employment in the mill by fraud showing himself as son of Siddique.
8. It is evident from record that the petitioner was afforded opportunity during enquiry proceedings wherein he admitted that he is son of Sri Abdul Raseed but also stated that he was adopted by Sri Siddique though he could not substantiate his claim of adoption as son by Sri Siddique by any documentary or other evidence in the enquiry. It further appears from record that the petitioner was again served with a show cause notice dated 24.10.2005 to defend himself in response thereof, he submitted reply dated 1.11.2005 alleging insinuations against the character of the complainant Mrs. Sadrunmshan, Thereafter he was again given an opportunity of personal hearing but the petitioner miserably failed to substantiate and fortify his claim by any evidence. In the circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled in terms of Clause 16 contained in the letter of appointment. For ready reference, Clause 16 of the appointment letter, which is originally in Devnagri script, i.e., in Hindi, is quoted below in roman English:
16. Yadi padastha dnwra niyukti ke sainbandh main hoi va kisi prakar ki galat suchna di gai hogi to uprokta niyukti aadesh turant nivastha kar diya jdwega aur padastha ke vinidha yadi koi kcuyawahi wanchit samjhi gai to wah bhi sampanna ki jawegi.
9. It also appears from the appointment letter that the petitioner was interviewed and selected on the basis of examination as son of Sri Siddique resident of village Dharauli, Pargana and Tahsil Ghosi District Man and that the copy of the appointment letter was also sent to the petitioner on the address given by him as "Sri Dil Mohammad, son of Sri Siddique, resident of village Dharauli, Pargana and Tahasil Ghosi, district Man.
10. It also appears from record that Sri Siddique had instituted Original Suit No. 64 of 1997- Siddique v. The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ghosi, Mau in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mau impleading the petitioner as defendant No. 3. In paragraphs 7 to 14 of the plaint allegations, it is averred that the petitioner-Oil Mohammad is son of Sri Abdul Raseed; that plaintiff never claimed Dil Mohammad to be his son who had obtained service by fraud by claiming himself to be the son of plaintiff. It is averred that on coming to know about this fact, the plaintiff had reported the matter to the mill administration but in spite of repeated requests neither any action was taken against the petitioner nor any member of the family of the plaintiff- Sri Siddique, i.e., divorced daughter or widowed daughter-in-law was given employment for the reasons best known to the respondents. Sri Siddiqe- the plaintiff also averred in the plaint that as he had become old, the petitioner was misbehaving with his widowed daughter-in-law and divorced daughter by beating and threatening to oust them from the house and property. It was also alleged that the petitioner had obtained employment in the mill by playing fraud.
11. From the plaint allegations, it is evident that Sri Siddique was Bhumidhar of the land (Aaraji No. 425, Raqba 189 Kadi in village Dharauli) which was acquired by the respondent-mill but no one from his family was provided any employment as his sons were at Bombay and the petitioner- Dil Mohammad impersonating himself to be the son of Sri Siddique obtained employment in the respondent-mill apparently to get employment as both the sons of late Sri Siddique who had migrated to Bombay had died during his life time.
12. The respondent-mill also filed its written statement inter alia that if there is any fraud, it has been committed in collusion with the petitioner and Sri Siddique.
13. In the meantime, Sri Siddique expired and is no more in this world.
14. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Sri Siddique was left by him family members all alone. His two sons had migrated to Bombay and the daughter-in-law was living there with her husband, the daughter was living with her husband and there was no one to look after him. Since the petitioner was taking care of Sri Siddique in old age, he was adopted by Sri Siddique. The petitioner, in the circumstances, claiming himself to be son of Sri Siddique who had also given an affidavit, inter alia that petitioner-Dil Mohammad was his son, moved application for appointment. His appointment was made in accordance with law after interview/examination hence the respondent-authorities cannot take any action against the petitioner without adopting prescribed procedure under the extant law. It is stated that Sri Siddiqe was his real uncle and always treated him as his son.
15. It is urged that the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal and unjust as respondents neither gave any notice to the petitioner nor conducted any enquiry as such the impugned order is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. He further urged that the petitioner had not played any fraud or submitted any factitious papers for getting appointment in the Mills as alleged and that the suit was not filed by Sri Siddique but was filed by Mrs. Sadrulnishan who did not dare to lodge any complaint against the petitioner during the lifetime of Sri Siddique,
16. No other point was argued by the counsel for the parties.
17. The Chief Cane Officer/enquiry officer while enquiring he matter had given the petitioner an opportunity to place his defence in which he admitted that he, in fact, is a real son of Sri Abdul Raseed but he could not substantiate and fortify his claim that he was adopted by Sri Siddique by any evidence. He was afforded several opportunities of personal hearing. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice had been violated in passing the impugned order.
18. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner now claims himself to be the adopted son of Sri Siddique. However, no document or evidence to the effect that he was actually adopted by Sri Siddique was ever produced by him before the enquiry officer or even after he was served with show cause notice or at the time of personal hearing.
19. The petitioner has also failed to substantiate before this Court by any cogent evidence, whatsoever, to prove his adoption by Sri Siddique. There is no material in the writ petition to come to conclusion that the disciplinary authority has recorded any incorrect finding to the effect that the enquiry officer gave insufficient time to the petitioner to produce documents or that the petitioner had not played any fraud to get appointment in the Mills.
20. It is evident from the record appended with the petition that suit No. 64 of 1997 was instituted by Sri Siddique during his life time in which he had specifically alleged that the petitioner was neither his son nor was ever adopted by him. Hence question of any adoption does not arise. In fad, in the plaint allegations, filed by Sri Siddique, it has been unequivocally stated that the petitioner had obtained service in the respondent-mill by fraud.
21. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there is every likelihood that the affidavit said to have been given to the respondent-authorities by Sri Siddique in favour of the petitioner to the effect that Dil Mohammad was his son, may be, in fact, a fabricated document as Sri Siddique has denied the relationship of father and son with him. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that according to the petitioner's version Sri Siddique was living all alone and petitioner had every opportunity and motive to play fraud upon an old and unsuspecting real uncle in the facts and circumstances of this case.
22. It appears that when Sri Siddique became very old, the petitioner started misbehaving with the divorced daughter and daughter-in-law who came to live with him in the village. It appeals that the petitioner convinced that old man and two pardanashin women could not be able to do anything to stop him showed his intentions to grab the moveable and immoveable properties of Sri Siddique, Sri Siddique at that point of time came to know about the fraud and accordingly he took legal action in the form of complaint. Sri Wali Mohammad, the eldest son of Sri Abdul Raseed and elder brother of the petitioner had already been provided employment in the respondent-mill in lieu of the land of Sri Abdul Raseed acquired by the Mill. The petitioner, therefore, appears to have played fraud by claiming himself to be the son of. Sri Siddique whose real sons Rustam and Ali Ahmad had died and there was no other person who could have come to know about the fraud as Sri Siddique was living alone at that time. The affidavit said to have been given by Sri Siddique is of no help to the petitioner in view of admission of the petitioner and allegations of fraud in the suit.
23. It is settled law that rights acquired through fraud are vitiated. In cases when fraud is found proved even principles of natural justice need not be observed. In the instant case not only fraud is proved, it is also admitted fact that petitioner was not the son of Sri Siddique. He took advantage of a situation to get employment though he was not the son of Sri Siddique. 1 do not find any illegality in the impugned order. It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the circumstances narrated above.
24. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.