LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus M. BHASKARAN, ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. M. BHASKARA..1\1, ETC. ETC. OCTOBER 30, 1995 B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] S e1Vice Law : Rule 3(J)(i) and (iii}-Railway Se1Vices (Conduct) Rules, 1966. c Removal from se1Vice-Workmen obtaining employment in Railway se1Vice on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer se1Vice cards--Fraud detected by Railway authorities-Orders of removal from service passed-Central Administrative Tribunal ordering reinstatement of the employees-On appeal held-Even independently of the Rule such D fraudulently obtained appointment orders could be legitimately treated as voidable by the employer and could be recalled by the employer-Merely because such employees had continued in se1Vice for number of years on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot create any equity in their favour or any estoppel against the employei-<Jrders of E Tribunal set aside. The respondent-workmen obtained employment in Railway service on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer service cards. The Railway authorities detected the fraud and removed them from service. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which ordered their F reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Hence these appeals. G Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The unauthenticity of the service cards on the basis of which the respondents got employment is clearly established on record of the departmental enquiry held against the concerned employees. Conse- qnently, respondents were guilty of misrepresentation and fraud per- petrated on the appellant-employer while getting employed in Railway Service and had snatched such employment which would not have been made available to them if they were not armed with such bogus and forged H labourer cards. (530-B-C] 526 U.O.l. v. M. BH/\SKARAN IS.B. M/\JMUDAR. J.] 527 2. Once such fraud is detected, the appointment orders themselves A \Vhich "'ere found to be tainted and vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of en1ployees, were liable to be recalled and \\·ere at least voidable at the option of the en1ployer concerned. This is precisely \\'hat has happened in the present case. The respondents \\'ere proceeded against in departmental enquiries and were called upon to have their say and B thereafter have been removed from service. Such orders of removal would amount to recalling of fraudulently obtained erroneous appointment or- ders which were avoided by the employer-appellant after following the due procedure of law and complying with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, even independently of Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) of the Rules, such fraudulently obtained appointment orders could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer and could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent-employees have continued in service for number of years on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot create any equity in their favour or c any estoppel against the employers. [530-E-H) D District Collector & Chainnan, Vizianagarani Social Welfare Residen- tial School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. v. M. T1ipura Sundwi Devi, [1990) 3 sec 655, relied on. 3. It cannot be said that the appellants are estopped from recalling such fraudulently obtained employment orders of the respondents subject of course to following due procedure of law and in due compliance with the principles or natural justice, on which aspect there is no dispute beh\'een the parties. lf' any lenient vi~\V is taken on the facts of the present case in favour of the respondents then it \\'ould amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which on the facts of the present cases cannot be permitted. [532-A-B) E F 4. If by committing fraud any employment is obtained such a fraudulent practice cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of G law. Tribunal had comn1itted a patent error of la\\' in directing reinstate- n1ent of the respondent-workn1en \\'ith all consequential benefits. The removal orders could not have been faulted by the Tribunal as they were the result of a sharp and fraudulent practice pn the part of the respon- dents. [531-E) H 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal No. 9636 of B c 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.94 of the Central
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.