Summary
Railway employees appointed on compassionate grounds were terminated after show-cause notices found their appointments rested on forged documents. The Tribunal upheld the termination, but the High Court ordered reinstatement for want of a full disciplinary inquiry. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's order, holding that the employees had been heard, had never shown their eligibility, and, having obtained their posts by fraud, could not claim the protection of Article 311 or the Discipline Rules.
Issues
- Whether the termination of employees whose compassionate appointments were found to rest on forged and fabricated documents was legally sustainable without a regular departmental inquiry.
- Whether a person who obtains a post by fraud can claim the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution and the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated.
Provisions considered
- Article 311, Constitution of IndiaFollowing R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, a person who obtained a post by fraud is not regarded as holding a post for the purpose of the constitutional protections, so the employees could not invoke Article 311. (¶¶ 8, 13.3, 14)
- Rule 14, Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968The High Court had read the Rules as barring dismissal of a regular employee without inquiry; the Supreme Court held that the plea of non-compliance with the Rules was answered by Vishwanatha Pillai, since the employees held their positions by fraud. (¶¶ 3, 14)
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaNoted, through SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, as requiring all eligible candidates to be considered; compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not a right. (¶¶ 6.3, 7)
Held
- Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right. A claimant must show relationship to the deceased and eligibility by placing all relevant documents before the authority; the authority and the Tribunal had found that the employees produced no such documents and relied on forged and bogus ones. (¶¶ 6.2, 6.3, 7)
- There was no breach of natural justice: show-cause notices were issued and answered, and the employees participated at every stage. Questioning the procedure did not absolve them of producing the documents sought, and before the Tribunal, as the parties pleading their case, they had to produce material showing the dismissal was wrong but did not even disclose their fathers' service particulars. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Fraud vitiates all proceedings. A person who has obtained a post by fraud is not regarded as holding a post for the purpose of the protections under the Constitution, so the employees could not invoke Article 311 or the Discipline Rules, and posts obtained by falsely establishing eligibility for compassionate appointment cannot be retained. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 13.3, 14)
- Departmental and criminal proceedings may continue simultaneously; the criminal case registered against the employees for forgery and cheating is independent of the employer's action, and the observations in this judgment do not bear on it. (¶¶ 12, 15)
- Whether connected matters are heard together or separately is for the Tribunal to decide; the High Court's comments on this were not justified. The Court also expressed surprise that the Railways had made appointments without proper verification of documents. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the Tribunal's order dismissing the Original Applications restored, upholding the dismissals; observations not to affect the pending criminal proceedings; the connected appeal on similar facts also allowed.