How Can Someone Be Appointed To A Govt. Job Without Proper Verification Of Documents ? SC Expresses Surprise While Upholding Dismissal Of Railways Employees
The Supreme Court questioned the Railways for employing a candidate based on forged and fabricated employment documents.
The Court upheld the dismissal of two railways employees who were terminated from their services after having produced fraudulent documents for compassionate appointment.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “Before parting with the matter, however, in the facts of this case, we express our surprise towards the actions of the appellant-employer who appointed the respondent-employees on the basis of 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.”
AOR Amrish Kumar appeared for the appellants, while AOR Bankey Bihari Sharma represented the respondent.
The employees in question were appointed on compassionate grounds to the Engineering Department of the Eastern Railway. The disciplinary authority placed the employees under suspension due to contemplation/pendency of departmental enquiry. After receiving their responses, the authority found that the appointments of the employees were based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents and consequently, terminated their services.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) dismissed the applications filed by the employees challenging their dismissal, stating that they did not come to the court with "clean hands."
Contrarily, the Calcutta High Court found the decision of the Tribunal untenable and directed their reinstatement. The High Court criticized the railway authorities for not conducting a proper disciplinary inquiry before dismissing the employees, as required under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.
The Supreme Court pointed out that since 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.”
Both the Tribunal as well as the Railways had recorded a categorical finding that the employees had not submitted any document to establish their claim and submitted forged and bogus documents.
“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,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court since the requisite to establish eligibility for compassionate appointment was not properly fulfilled and explained, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Union Of India & Ors. v. Prohlad Guha (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 563)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Amrish Kumar
Respondent: AOR Bankey Bihari Sharma and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal