Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
The appellant had enrolled in the Army as a Sepoy/Washerman in 2009 using a Relationship Certificate that was later discovered, roughly six years in, to be fake. He was dismissed from service under Section 20(3) of the Army Act, 1950, for fraudulent enrolment, and his challenge before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was rejected. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the general dismissal power under Section 20(3) could not be used when a specific provision (Section 122(4), dealing with limitation for fraudulent-enrolment trials) existed to deal with such cases.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 20(3), read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954, permits dismissal once the person has been informed of the charge and given a reasonable opportunity to respond: a procedure that was followed here, and in any event rendered an "empty formality" once the appellant himself admitted the certificate was fake. The Court relied on a line of its own precedents (including M. Bhaskaran, R. Vishwanatha Pillai and Rajeshwar Baburao Bone) holding that employment obtained through fraud, such as a false certificate, is voidable at the employer's option and that a person who secures a position by fraud cannot later claim procedural protections or equitable relief. Applying the maxim that no one can take advantage of their own wrongdoing, the Court found the authorities were well within their rights to invoke Section 20(3) and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
An appointment or enrolment obtained through fraud (such as a fake certificate) can be terminated even years later, and the person responsible cannot invoke procedural technicalities or equitable sympathy to escape the consequences of their own fraud.