Union of India And Ors. vs. Prohlad Guha . Etc (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 563) - (Supreme Court) (01 Aug 2024)

Appointments on compassionate ground cannot be allowed to be retained, when position is obtained by fraud

MANU/SC/0815/2024

Service

In facts pf present case, Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate ground with the Engineering Department, Eastern Railway. The disciplinary authority placed the respondents under suspension due to contemplation/pendency of departmental enquiry. On issuing show cause notice, information was sought as to why their appointments on compassionate ground should not be terminated as it was based on forged and fabricated documents with respect to the employment of their respective fathers. After receiving their responses, the authority found that their appointments were based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents, however, terminated their services.

On filing appeals against the order of termination, they were dismissed by the appellate authority, vide order. The respondent-employees preferred writ petitions wherein the High Court held that the order of the Tribunal was untenable. The Appellant-employers were directed to reinstate the respondent-employees with the liberty to place them under suspension if they choose to hold a departmental inquiry in accordance with the Discipline Rules. Further, it was directed that during the period of such suspension, subsistence allowance would have to be paid.

Upon it being discovered that the respondent-employees had secured appointments on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, an FIR bearing stood registered against them under Sections467, 468, 471, 419, 420 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no bar, as has been held in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and as recently reiterated in State Bank of India &Ors. v. P. Zadenga, for departmental and criminal proceedings to continue simultaneously. The criminal proceedings initiated as a result of alleged fraud committed by the respondent- employees are independent of the proceedings initiated by the appellant- employer.

The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on a further ground, since the requisite to establish eligibility for compassionate appointment was not properly fulfilled, they were appointed on the basis of false claims and fabricated documents.

Fraud vitiates all proceedings. Compassionate appointment is granted to those persons whose families are left deeply troubled or destitute by the primary breadwinner either having been incapacitated or having passed away. When persons seeking appointment on such ground, attempt to falsely establish their eligibility, such positions cannot be allowed to be retained. The respondent-employees in the present case, having obtained their position by fraud, would not be considered to be holding a post for the purpose of the protections under the Constitution.

The impugned judgment passed by the High Court, is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the respondent-employees’ Original Applications is restored. The respondent- employees were rightly dismissed from service by the appellant-employer. Appeals allowed.

Tags : REINSTATEMENT DIRECTION LEGALITY