LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. versus PROHLAD GUHA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8 : 2024 INSC 563 Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4434-4437 of 2014) 01 August 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate ground. The authority found that their appointments were based on forged/ fabricated and bogus documents and their services were terminated. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the dismissal from service handed down to the respondent-employees is legally sustainable or not. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground – Allegation that appointments of respondent-employees were based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents – Employees were terminated from services – Original Applications filed before CAT against the termination order – CAT dismissed the applications holding that applicants have not stated about the service particulars of their fathers viz where their father working or whom they retired etc. – However, the High Court held that the order of the Tribunal was untenable – Correctness: Held: The principle of compassionate appointment has been put in place to ameliorate suffering that is cast upon members of a family upon the sudden death of the earning member – An equally well-recognized principle is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right – It is therefore clear that a person, claiming an appointment on such ground, has to demonstrate his relationship to the deceased person and eligibility for appointment – The same cannot be done without placing all relevant documents before the competent authority – The Tribunal as also the authority has recorded a categorical finding that the respondent-employees had not submitted any document to establish their claim and submitted forged and bogus documents – It was incumbent upon them to produce all documents, on the basis of which they could have said that their dismissal from service on the part of the appellant-employer was incorrect and unjust in law – However, * Author [2024] 8 S.C.R. 9 Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc. the respondent-employees did not furnish any document – On the aspect of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, this Court finds that the authority had issued show-cause notices to the respondent-employees, to which they responded – The respondent-employees have, at every stage, actively participated in the adjudication process of their alleged improper and illegal appointments – Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside – The respondent-employees were rightly dismissed from service by the appellant-employer – The order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the respondent-employees’ original applications is restored. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 13, 15] Words and Phrases – Fraud – Meaning of – Discussed. Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Fraud – Protection under Constitution: Held: 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 – So when persons seeking appointment on such ground attempt to falsely establish their eligibility, as has been done in this case, 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. [Para 14] Case Law Cited Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of W.B. [2009] 11 SCR 972 : (2009) 10 SCC 32; Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon (2021) 16 SCC 384; SAIL v. Madhusudan Das [2008] 14 SCR 824 : (2008) 15 SCC 560; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [2009] 16 SCR 111 : (2010) 2 SCC 114; Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 446 : (1992) 1 SCC 534; Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal [2013] 8 SCR 471 : (2013) 9 SCC 363 – relied on. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [1999] 2 SCR 257 : (1999) 3 SCC 679; State Bank of India & Ors. v. P. Zadenga [2023] 12 SCR 740 : (2023) 10 SCC 675; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School of Intermediate Education [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 352 : (2003) 8 SCC 311; R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2004] 1 SCR 360 : (2004) 2 SCC 105 – referred to. Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702; Derry v. Peek
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.