The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

"Fraud Unravels Everything": Supreme Court Strikes Down Reinstatement of Railway Employees Appointed with Forged Documents

31 August 2024 9:58 AM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the dismissal of several railway employees who were found to have secured their jobs through fraudulent means. The ruling underscores the judiciary's firm stance against deceitful practices, especially in matters involving compassionate appointments. The decision overturns a previous High Court judgment that had reinstated the employees, with the Supreme Court emphasizing that fraud vitiates even the most solemn of proceedings.

The case involves the Union of India appealing against a High Court order that had overturned the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) decision to dismiss railway employees who were appointed on compassionate grounds using forged documents. These employees were originally placed under suspension pending a departmental inquiry, which revealed that their appointments were based on falsified documents related to their deceased fathers' employment in the railway service. Despite the Tribunal's dismissal of their applications, the High Court reinstated the employees, prompting the Union of India to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's judgment, delivered by a bench including Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, firmly stated that the appointments obtained by the respondents through fraudulent documents could not be sustained. The Court reiterated the principle that "fraud unravels everything," citing earlier judgments that emphasized how fraud vitiates all proceedings, whether judicial or administrative. The bench noted that despite the respondents' claims, they failed to produce any valid documentation to support their eligibility for compassionate appointments.

The respondents had argued that their dismissal violated principles of natural justice, claiming they were not given a fair opportunity to prove their innocence. However, the Court found this argument unconvincing, highlighting that the respondents had actively participated in the inquiry process and were unable to provide any legitimate evidence to substantiate their claims. The Court also pointed out that the respondents had continued to challenge the procedural aspects rather than addressing the substantive issue of the forged documents.

The Court reinforced that compassionate appointments are a concession, not a right, and must be granted based on genuine eligibility. The misuse of this provision through fraudulent means not only undermines the integrity of the system but also deprives genuinely deserving candidates. The bench criticized the High Court for its misinterpretation of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and clarified that the rules do not permit the reinstatement of employees who secured their positions through deceit.

Justice Sanjay Karol emphasized, "No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage he has obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The respondents, having obtained their positions by fraud, cannot be considered to be holding a post for the purpose of protections under the Constitution."

The Supreme Court's decision to set aside the High Court's judgment and uphold the CAT's dismissal order serves as a strong reminder that fraud and deceit will not be tolerated, particularly in public service appointments. The ruling reinforces the principle that compassionate appointments must be reserved for those truly in need, and any attempt to subvert this process through fraudulent means will be met with stringent legal consequences.

Date of Decision: August 1, 2024.

Union of India & Ors. vs. Prohlad Guha & Ors.

Similar News