Fraud allegations in employment require specific pleadings and proof; unsupported accusations cannot justify termination or deny reinstatement.

Fraud or misrepresentation alleged in an appointment must be specifically pleaded with particulars and proved by reliable evidence before termination can be justified. The record here showed selection through a regular process, followed by confirmation after one year, while the material relied on did not identify the fraud, the supporting particulars, or any overt act attributable to the employee. On that evidence, the allegation failed, the termination could not be sustained on that basis, and reinstatement with continuity of service was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegation of fraudulent appointment and misrepresentation was established so as to justify termination of service and deny reinstatement.

Analysis: The respondent's dismissal was founded on the assertion that the recommendation leading to appointment was fraudulent. The record showed that the respondent had been selected through the regular selection process, including interview and medical examination, and had been confirmed after one year of service. The material relied upon did not contain specific pleadings or proof showing what fraud was committed, what particulars supported the allegation, or what overt act was attributable to the respondent. In matters alleging fraud, particulars are essential and the burden lies on the party asserting fraud to establish it by evidence. On the evidence available, the alleged fraud was not proved.

Conclusion: The allegation of fraud and misrepresentation failed, the termination could not be sustained on that basis, and the grant of reinstatement with continuity of service was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of fraud or misrepresentation cannot be accepted unless it is specifically pleaded with particulars and proved by reliable material; absent such proof, adverse employment action based solely on suspicion cannot stand.

---