THE SECRETARY, A.P. SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS versus SHRI PINDIGA SRIDHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 19-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

L 
THE SECRETARY, A.P. SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL 
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 
v. 
SHRI PINDIGA SRIDHAR AND ORS. 
MARCH 19, 2007 
[H.K. SEMA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Appointment-Compassionate appointment-Appointment sought 
admittedly concealing certain facts-Appointment granted-Termination on 
the ground that the same was secured by suppressing the facts-Single Judge 
of High Court upholding the order-Division Bench of High Court set aside 
A 
B 
c 
the order of termination on the ground that before passing it, show cause D 
notice was not given to the employee and hence violative of principles of 
Natural Justice-On appeal, held: Department was justified in terminating 
the services of the employee-In view of the admitted facts of suppression, 
there was no necessity to issue show cause notice-In the facts of the case, 
principles of Natural Justice were not violated 
Principles-Principles of Natural Justice-Applicability-Held; The 
principle cannot be applied in a straight jacket formula- It depends on facts 
and circumstances of each case. 
E 
Respondent applied for compassionate appointment with the appellant 
Institution after death of his father in harness. He was appointed on F 
compassionate ground. At the time, he had applied for the appointment, his 
mother was in service and when he joined the service, his wife was in service. 
These facts are admitted by the respondent. His appointment was terminated 
on the ground that the same was secured by suppressing the facts. He 
challenged the order of termination in Writ Petition and the same was 
dismissed by Single Judge of High Court Division Bench of High Court in G 
writ Appeal, set aside the order of Single Judge holding that the termination 
order violated the principles of Natural justice as the respondent was not given 
show cause notice, before the same was passed. Hence the present appeal. 
145 
H 
' 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
).._ 
HELD: I. When the respondent made an application for appointment on 
compassionate ground his mother was in service and his wife were in services 
when he was appointed. Therefore, the respondent secured the appointment 
' 
on compassionate ground by suppressing this fact. In the aforesaid facts and 
B circumstances, the department was justified in terminating the services of 
the respondent. [Paras 7 and 8) (147-E-F-G-H; 148-A-B-C-D) 
..... 
2.1. Principles ofnatural justice cannot be applied in a straight jacket 
formula. Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 
---
c 
To sustain the coin plaint of the violation of principles of natural justice, one 
must establish that he was prejudiced for non-observance of the principles of 
natural justice. [Para 9) (148-E) 
2.2. fo the present case, the fact on which the appellant terminated the 
services of the respondent, appointed on compassionate ground was admitted 
D by the respondent himself that when he applied for the post on compassionate 
ground his mother was in service. So also when he secured the appointment 
his wife was in service. These facts clearly disclose that the appointment on 
compassionate ground was secured by playing fraud. Fraud clocks everything. 
'-.._ 
In such admitted facts, there was no necessity of issuing show cause notice 
to him. The view of the High Court that termination suffers from the non-
E observance of the principles of natural justice is therefore., clearly erroneous. 
In the given facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the 
respondent. The respondent could not have improved his case even if a show 
cause notice was issued to him. (Para 9) [148-E-F-G-H; 149-A) 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1470 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 356 of 2005. 
Roy Abraham, Seema Jain and Himinder Lal for the Appellant. 
G 
S. Chandra Shekhar, Shanmuga Patro, San jay Kumar Singh, Manoj Saxena 
and T.V. George for the Respondents. 
-., 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
'--
H.K. SEMA, J. I. Leav~ granted. 
H 
L 
/-
THE SECRETARY. A.P. SOCIAL \\'ELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS•·. PINDIGA SRIDHAR ISEMA l.l} 4 7 
~ 
2. Heard the parties. 
A 
3. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.8.2005 passe~ 
by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal 
No.356 of 2005. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.