The Supreme Court expressed surprise at how individuals could be appointed to government positions without proper verification of their documents. This reaction came as the court upheld the dismissal of several railway employees who had been appointed without undergoing the necessary document checks.
“Before concluding the matter, we express our surprise at the actions of the appellant-employer, who appointed the respondent-employees based on questionable documentation, later found to be forged, fabricated, and bogus. How could someone be appointed to a government job without proper verification of documents? The Railways, being one of the largest employers in the country, must ensure that such incidents do not fall through the cracks and should be checked.”
AOR Amrish Kumar represented the appellants, while AOR Bankey Bihari Sharma appeared for the respondent. The employees in question appointed on compassionate grounds to the Engineering Department of the Eastern Railway.
The disciplinary authority suspended the employees due to the contemplation or pendency of a departmental inquiry. After reviewing their responses, the authority found that the employees’ appointments were based on forged, fabricated, and bogus documents, leading to their dismissal. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the employees’ applications challenging their dismissal, stating they did not come to the court with “clean hands.”
However, the Calcutta High Court found the Tribunal‘s decision untenable and ordered the employees’ 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 noted that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right, stating,
“A person claiming an appointment on such grounds must demonstrate their relationship to the deceased person and eligibility for appointment. This cannot be done without placing all relevant documents before the competent authority.”
Both the Tribunal and the Railways recorded a categorical finding that the employees had not submitted any valid documents to establish their claim and instead submitted forged and bogus documents.
The Court remarked,
“It is apparent from the record that the respondent-employees did not furnish any documents as part of the O.As. When the claim made before the Tribunal itself is unclear, equivocal, and unsupported by relevant material, its rejection is not surprising. If the very basis upon which the relief is claimed is found to be questionable, then awarding the relief would be improper,”
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, noting that the requirement to establish eligibility for compassionate appointment was not properly fulfilled.
Read Also: Lawyers Can’t Use of Prefixes Like ‘Lt. Colonel’ & ‘MP’ in Legal Documents”: Madras HC
The Court explained,
“Compassionate appointment is granted to those whose families are deeply troubled or destitute due to the primary breadwinner being incapacitated or having passed away. When individuals seeking such appointments attempt to falsely establish their eligibility, as in this case, such positions cannot be allowed to be retained.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal.
The appellants represented by AOR Amrish Kumar, while the respondents represented by AOR Bankey Bihari Sharma and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.