Case Note & Summary
The case involves the State of Uttar Pradesh and its police authorities appealing against the reinstatement of a police constable whose services were terminated due to medical unfitness. The respondent was initially selected as a constable in 2005 but was found to have a knock knee deformity in a medical re-test in 2007, leading to cancellation of his appointment. Despite being found unfit twice, he was provisionally reinstated in 2013 after claiming parity with other medically unfit candidates who had been reinstated following a High Court order. Subsequently, an enquiry was initiated against him for concealing his medical condition, and his services were terminated in 2017. The termination was upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities. The respondent then approached the State Public Services Tribunal, which allowed his claim and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits except back wages. The High Court upheld this order and dismissed the review application. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Services Tribunal. The Court held that the respondent's appointment was obtained through fraud by misrepresenting the interim order of the Supreme Court, and that fraud unravels everything. It also held that there is no concept of negative equality under law, and the respondent cannot claim parity with candidates who themselves obtained appointments through fraud. The Court rejected the respondent's argument under Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, as the deformity was pre-existing. The termination was upheld, and the respondent's reinstatement was set aside.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Concealment of Medical Unfitness - Fraud - The respondent, a police constable, was found medically unfit twice due to knock knee deformity and his appointment was cancelled. He later obtained reinstatement by claiming parity with candidates who had themselves obtained appointments through fraud. The Supreme Court held that fraud unravels everything and that there is no concept of negative equality under law. The termination was upheld as the respondent's appointment was vitiated by fraud. (Paras 7-9, 14-15) B) Service Law - Enquiry - Show Cause Notice - The respondent argued that the enquiry officer travelled beyond the show cause notice. However, the Supreme Court did not address this issue as the main ground of fraud was sufficient to decide the case. (Para 11) C) Disability Law - Section 47(1) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - The respondent claimed protection under Section 47(1) for developing knock knee during service. The Court rejected this as the deformity was pre-existing and not acquired during service. (Para 12) D) Constitutional Law - Article 136 - Scope of Interference - The Supreme Court noted that it does not normally re-examine evidence or disturb concurrent findings unless there is clear error or gross injustice. However, in this case, the concurrent findings were based on a misapplication of law regarding fraud and negative equality, warranting interference. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent on grounds of concealment of medical unfitness was valid, and whether the High Court erred in upholding the Services Tribunal's order of reinstatement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the order of the Services Tribunal, and upheld the termination of the respondent's services. The Court held that the respondent's appointment was obtained through fraud and that fraud unravels everything. The principle of negative equality does not apply. The respondent's claim under Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act was rejected as the deformity was pre-existing.
Law Points
- Fraud unravels everything
- No negative equality under law
- Concurrent findings not disturbed unless perverse
- Enquiry officer cannot travel beyond show cause notice
- Section 47(1) Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 not applicable to pre-existing condition
