MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

“Fraud Unravels Everything”: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Railway Employees Hired with Forged Documents

08 September 2024 8:31 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


The Supreme Court has reversed the Calcutta High Court’s decision to reinstate railway employees dismissed for securing jobs through fraudulent means. The bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, upheld the termination of the employees, underscoring the importance of integrity in public employment and the principles of natural justice.

Facts of the Case:

The case involved respondent-employees appointed on compassionate grounds in the Engineering Department of the Howrah Division, Eastern Railway. Their appointments were challenged after it was discovered that they had used forged documents to secure their positions. Following an inquiry, their services were terminated. The employees’ appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta Bench. However, the Calcutta High Court later reinstated them, prompting the Union of India to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Court Observations and Views:

Credibility of Evidence:

The Supreme Court found that the respondents did not provide any valid documents to support their claims of eligibility for compassionate appointments. The bench observed that the employees had submitted forged documents and failed to produce any substantial proof during various stages of the adjudication process.

Natural Justice:

Addressing the issue of natural justice, the Court noted that the respondents were given ample opportunity to respond to the show-cause notices issued to them. “The authority had issued show-cause notices to the respondent-employees, to which they responded. It was subsequent thereto, upon finding the responses to be unsatisfactory, they were removed from the service,” the bench stated.

Principle of Fraud:

The Court reiterated the established legal principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings. Justice Sanjay Karol emphasized, “Fraud unravels everything. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage he has obtained by fraud.” The judgment referenced several precedents underscoring that any appointment obtained through fraudulent means is void ab initio and does not merit legal protection.

Legal Reasoning:

The judgment extensively discussed the implications of fraudulent appointments and the necessity for strict verification processes in public employment. The bench cited earlier decisions to underline that compassionate appointments are a concession, not a right, and must be rigorously scrutinized to prevent abuse.

Quotes from the Judgment:

Justice Sanjay Karol remarked, “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.”

 

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the High Court’s judgment and uphold the dismissals sends a strong message about the necessity of integrity and adherence to legal principles in public employment. This landmark ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to preventing and addressing fraud within public services.

Date of Decision: August 1, 2024

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

Latest Legal News