Allahabad High Court: Date of Birth Discrepancy Without Fraud Not Grounds for Dismissal, Orders Reinstatement of Mau Assistant Teacher
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a mere discrepancy in the date of birth recorded in different educational documents of a government employee, in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or deliberate concealment, cannot be treated as a valid ground for termination of service.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan quashed the June 27, 2019 dismissal order issued against an assistant teacher posted in Mau district and directed the state authorities to allow him to resume his duties immediately.
The court observed that allegations of fraud carry serious civil consequences and therefore must be supported by clear evidence of intentional deception.
It emphasized that inconsistencies in official records alone, without proof of mala fide intent, cannot justify punitive action such as dismissal from service.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Vijai Kumar Yadav, was appointed as an assistant teacher in a junior basic school in Mau district in 2014. However, in 2018, an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act sought details regarding his educational qualifications.
During scrutiny of documents, it was found that a High School certificate issued in 1998 recorded his date of birth as July 2, 1984, while a Purva Madhyama certificate issued in 2001 mentioned his date of birth as July 7, 1987.
Based on this discrepancy, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Mau, passed an order on June 27, 2019, dismissing the teacher from service.
The authority also directed that an FIR be lodged against him, alleging misrepresentation in official records.
Petitioner’s Argument Before the Court
Challenging the dismissal order, the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the High School certificate showing the differing date of birth had neither been submitted nor relied upon at any stage during the recruitment process.
It was further contended that the disputed certificate had not been used for securing admission to the BTC Training Course in 2010 or for obtaining any employment benefit. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there was no intention to gain any undue advantage or to mislead the authorities.
The petitioner maintained that the discrepancy was inadvertent and had no bearing on his eligibility or appointment, making the dismissal order legally unsustainable.
Court’s Observation on Fraud and Misrepresentation
While examining the matter, the court held that for non-disclosure or inconsistency in records to amount to misconduct, it must be shown that the act was deliberate and intended to deceive authorities.
Justice Chauhan observed that an inference of fraud cannot be drawn merely from ambiguous circumstances or inconsistencies in documents, particularly when there is no evidence that the employee derived any benefit from the alleged discrepancy.
The court reiterated that fraud involves intentional concealment or misrepresentation of material facts, and such serious allegations cannot be sustained based on technical inconsistencies alone.
Court Orders Immediate Reinstatement
Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the dismissal order dated June 27, 2019, and directed the state authorities to permit the petitioner to resume his duties without delay.
The order, passed on April 13, reaffirmed the principle that administrative action must be proportionate and based on clear evidence, especially when the livelihood of an individual is at stake.
The judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between genuine fraud and procedural discrepancies, while ensuring that disciplinary measures are imposed only in cases involving clear intent to deceive.
