Supreme Court Approves Dismissal Of Employees Given Compassionate Appointment On Forged Documents, Questions Railways' Lapse
While dismissing the employees who were granted a compassionate appointment by the Railways based on forged and fabricated documents with respect to the employment of their respective fathers, the Supreme Court on Thursday (August 1) expressed displeasure over the inactions of the Railways in appointing the employees based on questionable documentation, which was later found to be forged, fabricated, and bogus.
“How could someone be appointed to a government job without proper checking and verification of documents? The Railways are recorded to be one of the largest employers in the country and yet such incidents falling through the cracks, ought to be checked.”, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol said.
In the present case, the respondents were granted a compassionate appointment after the death of their father. The Tribunal set aside their appointments as the respondents didn't furnish documents to support their appointment. The decision of the tribunal was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.
However, the High Court held in favor of the respondents and set aside the decision of the Appellate Tribunal.
Following this, the Appellant/Railways approached the Supreme Court.
“It is apparent from record that the respondent-employees did not furnish any document as part of the O.As. When the claim made before the Tribunal itself is not clear, unequivocal and supported by relevant material, the same being rejected is not a matter of surprise. The very basis upon which the relief claimed rests is found to be circumspect then the relief, if awarded, suffers from the vice of being improper.”, Justice Sanjay Karol said.
The court added that the respondents could not be allowed to retain the position secured through committing fraud.
“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 court said.
The Court drew reference from the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363, wherein it was observed that “a person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation.”
“The impugned judgment passed by the High Court, in view of the above discussion, 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.”, the court concluded.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the order of the tribunal was restored to its effect.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. R Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Sweksha, Adv. Mr. Jitender Kr. Tripathi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Aayushi, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Adv.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. Versus PROHLAD GUHA ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4434-4437 OF 2014
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 543