Holding

An appointment obtained by fraud on compassionate grounds is void ab initio and the employee is not entitled to constitutional protection, rendering the dismissal lawful.

Summary

The respondents were appointed to the Eastern Railway on compassionate grounds, but the railway authority later discovered that the documents supporting their claims were forged and terminated their services. The respondents challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their applications, a decision later set aside by the Calcutta High Court, directing reinstatement. The Union of India appealed, arguing that the dismissals were lawful because the appointments were obtained fraudulently and the respondents failed to produce any valid proof of their fathers' service. The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointments are not a right and must be substantiated with genuine documents; fraud vitiates the appointment and bars any constitutional protection under Article 311. Consequently, the Court restored the Tribunal’s dismissal order and affirmed the respondents’ termination, allowing the appeals.

Issues considered

The legality of dismissing employees appointed on compassionate grounds when the appointment was based on forged documents
Whether the respondents were entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution despite alleged fraud
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the termination process
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s order

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 311
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968

Subjects

Service LawCompassionate appointmentForged/fabricated and bogus documentsFalse claimsTermination from serviceProtection under ConstitutionArticle 311 of ConstitutionFraudFraud vitiates all proceedingsPrinciples of natural justiceProduction of documents

Judgment

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8 : 2024 INSC 563

Union of India & Ors. Etc.
v.
Prohlad Guha Etc.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4434-4437 of 2014)
01 August 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate ground.
The authority found that their appointments were based on forged/
fabricated and bogus documents and their services were terminated.
The issue which arises for consideration is whether the dismissal
from service handed down to the respondent-employees is legally
sustainable or not.

Headnotes†
Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground –
Allegation that appointments of respondent-employees were
based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents – Employees
were terminated from services – Original Applications filed
before CAT against the termination order – CAT dismissed
the applications holding that applicants have not stated about
the service particulars of their fathers viz where their father
working or whom they retired etc. – However, the High Court
held that the order of the Tribunal was untenable – Correctness:
Held: The principle of compassionate appointment has been put
in place to ameliorate suffering that is cast upon members of a
family upon the sudden death of the earning member – An equally
well-recognized principle is that 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 – The Tribunal as also the authority
has recorded a categorical finding that the respondent-employees
had not submitted any document to establish their claim and
submitted forged and bogus documents – It was incumbent upon
them to produce all documents, on the basis of which they could
have said that their dismissal from service on the part of the
appellant-employer was incorrect and unjust in law – However,
* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9

Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc.

the respondent-employees did not furnish any document – On
the aspect of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice,
this Court finds that the authority had issued show-cause notices
to the respondent-employees, to which they responded – The
respondent-employees have, at every stage, actively participated
in the adjudication process of their alleged improper and illegal
appointments – Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside – The respondent-employees were rightly dismissed from
service by the appellant-employer – The order passed by the
Tribunal dismissing the respondent-employees’ original applications
is restored. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 13, 15]
Words and Phrases – Fraud – Meaning of – Discussed.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Fraud –
Protection under Constitution:
Held: Fraud vitiates all proceedings – 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 – The respondent-employees in the
present case, having obtained their position by fraud, would not be
considered to be holding a post for the purpose of the protections
under the Constitution. [Para 14]
Case Law Cited
Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of W.B. [2009] 11 SCR 972 : (2009) 10
SCC 32; Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon (2021) 16 SCC
384; SAIL v. Madhusudan Das [2008] 14 SCR 824 : (2008) 15
SCC 560; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [2009] 16 SCR 111 : (2010)
2 SCC 114; Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers [1991]
Supp. 3 SCR 446 : (1992) 1 SCC 534; Devendra Kumar v. State
of Uttaranchal [2013] 8 SCR 471 : (2013) 9 SCC 363 – relied on.
M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [1999] 2 SCR 257 :
(1999) 3 SCC 679; State Bank of India & Ors. v. P. Zadenga [2023]
12 SCR 740 : (2023) 10 SCC 675; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board
of High School of Intermediate Education [2003] Supp. 3 SCR
352 : (2003) 8 SCC 311; R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala
& Ors. [2004] 1 SCR 360 : (2004) 2 SCC 105 – referred to.
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702; Derry v. Peek
(1889) 14 AC 337 – referred to.
10 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968; Constitution
of India.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Compassionate appointment; Forged/fabricated
and bogus documents; False claims; Termination from service;
Protection under Constitution; Article 311 of Constitution; Fraud;
Fraud vitiates all proceedings; Principles of natural justice;
Production of documents.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.4434-4437 of
2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2012 of the High Court of
Calcutta in WPCT No.207, 213, 214 and 215 of 2012
With
Civil Appeal No.4445 of 2014
Appearances for Parties
R Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv., Vikrant Yadav, Sushil Kumar Dubey,
Sachin Sharma, Mrs. Sweksha, Jitender Kr. Tripathi, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. Aayushi, Anindo Mukherjee, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Bankey Bihari Sharma, Rajinder Kumar, Advs. for
the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4434-4437 OF 2014 :
1. The extant appeals filed by the Union of India1 take exception to
a common judgment and order dated 2nd August 2012 2 passed in
WPCT Nos. 207, 213, 214, and 215 of 2012, by the High Court of

1 Appellant-Employer
2 Impugned Judgment
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 11

Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc.

Calcutta whereby the common order passed in Original Application
Nos.794, 797, 795, and 796 of 2008, respectively, passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, was reversed and
relief claimed by the respondents were allowed.
2. A brief review of facts giving rise to the present appeals, is necessary.
2.1 Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate
ground with the Engineering Department, Howrah Division,
Eastern Railway. The disciplinary authority placed the
respondents under suspension due to contemplation/pendency
of departmental enquiry.3
2.2 On issuing show cause notice,4 information was sought as
to why their appointments on compassionate ground should
not be terminated as it was based on forged and fabricated
documents with respect to the employment of their respective
fathers. After receiving their responses, the authority found that
their appointments were based on forged/fabricated and bogus
documents, however, terminated their services.
2.3 On filing appeals against the order of termination, they were
dismissed by the appellate authority, vide order5 reproduced
as under -
“…Sri Biswanath Biswas, however, could not able to
produce an’ documents to establish his initial appointment
on compassionate ground against death of his father while
in service or any other relevant details regarding his father’s
identity, proof of working in the Railways, Station and place
of posting, relevant documents viz. Identity, Medical Card
of his deceased father. There is also whisper about retiral
benefits received by the family on account of pre-mature
death of his deceased father.
Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has arrive at a
conclusion that grounds exposed in the show cause notice
have been proyed and accordingly decided to terminate
him from Railway Service.

3 Suspension order dated 29th August 2005 in respect of Sri Biswanath Biswas
4 Show Cause notice dated 11th November, 2005 in respect of Sri Biswanath Biswas
5 Order of Appellate Authority dated 31st March 2008 in respect of Sri Biswanath Biswas
12 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Sri Biswanath Biswas, cannot claim any protection under
the Discipline & Appeals Rule since his initial appointment
was itself by fraudulent means.”
2.4 On filing original applications before the Central Administrative
Tribunal against the termination order and the Appellate
Authority’s order, the Tribunal dismissed the applications by a
common order dated 21st September, 2010, observing thus:-
“9. In the OA also the applicants have not stated about
the service particulars of their fathers viz where their
father working or whom they retired etc as referred to in
the appellate order. It is the settled position of law that a
person who has not come up with clean hands cannot get
equity from a court of law. The only point the applicant have
raised is that no protection under 311 of the Constitution
was given and no enquiry was held. We are not inclined
accept these contention because job obtained fraudulently
is void ab initio and such a person cannot get protection
under the constitution. Moreover FIR was also lodge
against them and the matter is pending before appropriate
Court of Law.”
3. The respondent-employees preferred writ petitions wherein the
High Court held that the order of the Tribunal was untenable. It was
observed that the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 19686
have been misinterpreted because as per circular of the Railway
Board, Rule 14 thereof only provides for dismissal of government
servants upon the charges levelled against them being proved when
they are temporary employees. The Rule, however, does not indicate
that when a person is in regular service the dismissal can take place
sans any disciplinary inquiry. The appellant-employers were directed
to reinstate the respondent-employees with the liberty to place them
under suspension if they choose to hold a departmental inquiry in
accordance with the Discipline Rules. Further, it was directed that
during the period of such suspension, subsistence allowance would
have to be paid.

6 Hereinafter ‘Discipline Rules’
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 13

Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc.

4. Having perused the record, the question that arises for our
consideration is that whether the dismissal from service handed
down to the respondent- employees is legally sustainable or not.
5. The undisputed position is that ever since the suspension orders
were issued qua the respondent-employees, they have not rendered
any service to the appellant-employer. It is further not in dispute that
the original order of termination was not stayed either by the High
Court or this Court. The impugned judgment was stayed by this
Court vide order dated 29th July 2013 which has been extended at
regular intervals.
6. Prior to delving into analysis, certain well-established principles may
be recalled putting the controversy in question, in context -
6.1 The principles of natural justice, the violation of which is alleged,
have been noticed as essential, in Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State
of W.B.7 in the following terms:-
“24. It is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides
should be heard—audi alteram partem i.e. hear the other
side and it is often considered that it is broad enough to
include the rule against bias since a fair hearing must be
an unbiased hearing. One of the essential ingredients of
fair hearing is that a person should be served with a proper
notice i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice should be
clear and precise so as to give the other party adequate
information of the case he has to meet and make an effective
defence. Denial of notice and opportunity to respond result
in making the administrative decision as vitiated.”
6.2 The principle of compassionate appointment has been stated
by this Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon,8
as follows-
“8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment
is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which
arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The
mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle
his family to such source of livelihood. The authority

7 [2009] 11 SCR 972 : (2009) 10 SCC 32
8 (2021) 16 SCC 384
14 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

concerned has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that
but for the provision of employment, the family will not
be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the
eligible member of the family [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
930] . It was further asseverated in the said judgment
that compassionate employment cannot be granted after
a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such
employment is not a vested right which can be exercised
at any time in the future. It was further held that the object
of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to
get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the
death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of
time and after the crisis is over.”
6.3 The relationship of ‘compassionate appointment’ with
constitutional principles has been discussed in SAIL v.
Madhusudan Das,9 wherein it was held that
“15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held
that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the
rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. that the death of
the sole bread earner of the family, must be established.
It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such
contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of
equality behind making such a scheme be taken into
consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be
considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen
vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to
a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to
the said rule. It is a concession, not a right. (See SBI v.
Anju Jain [(2008) 8 SCC 475 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 724]
, SCC para 33.)”
(Emphasis supplied)

9 [2008] 14 SCR 824 : (2008) 15 SCC 560
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 15

Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc.

6.4 The Tribunal observed that the respondent-employees had not
approached the Court ‘with clean hands’. About this principle,
a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dalip Singh v.
State of U.P.,10 has observed:
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two
basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi
guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life.
Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery
system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence
era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the
courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value
system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos
and the quest for personal gain has become so intense
that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take
shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression
of facts in the court proceedings.
x x x x
3. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] this
Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the
leave granted to the appellant by making the following
observations: (AIR p. 1558)
“It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution,
care must be taken not to make any statements which
are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes
statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the
petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray
the confidence of the Court by making statements which
are untrue and misleading…
x x x x

10 [2009] 16 SCR 111 : (2010) 2 SCC 114
16 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [(2007) 8 SCC 449] it
was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court
of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who
invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before
the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of
material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the
High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain
a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This
Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. v.
Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486
(CA)] , and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case [(2007)
8 SCC 449] , SCC p. 462, para 35)
In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the
conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the
applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant
materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court,
then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating
the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger
public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing
the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the
writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and
correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated
or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning
of the writ courts would become impossible.”
7. The principle of compassionate appointment, as we have noticed
above, has been put in place to ameliorate suffering that is cast
upon members of a family upon the sudden death of the earning
member. An equally well-recognized principle is that 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. The Tribunal as also the
authority has recorded a categorical finding that the respondent-
employees had not submitted any document to establish their claim
and submitted forged and bogus documents.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 17

Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc.

8. On the aspect of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice,
we find that 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. On approaching the Tribunal and
receiving favorable orders, their appeals against such dismissal
were heard and acted upon by the authority, with the dismissal
being confirmed. Before the High Court, it was averred that the
respondent-employees were not given an opportunity to prove their
innocence, nor were any documents, on the basis of which the
impugned order of dismissal was passed, provided to them. All of
this, it was submitted, flies against the protection envisaged under
Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
9. It is difficult to find substance in the averments made. The
respondent-employees have, at every stage, actively participated
in the adjudication process of their alleged improper and illegal
appointments. The Tribunal records that they did not produce
any document, as they were asked to, instead they questioned
the procedure adopted. This in itself does not absolve them from
producing documents as asked for. In the Original Applications
filed by the respondent-employees also, the service particulars of
their fathers in place of whom such employment was sought, have
not been disclosed, as recorded by the Tribunal. So, whereas a
respondent-employee may state that onus of proof on the part of
the appellant-employer was not discharged properly in respect of the
disciplinary proceedings initiated by the latter, as far as the O.As.
were concerned, the respondent-employees were the ones pleading
their case before a judicial or quasi-judicial authority. Therefore, it
was incumbent upon them to produce all documents, on the basis
of which they could have said that their dismissal from service on
the part of the appellant-employer was incorrect and unjust in law.
10. 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.
18 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

11. Whether or not the Tribunal ought to have heard the matter together
or separately is to be decided solely by the adjudicating authority.
Comments by the High Court in this regard do not appear to be just.
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.
12. Upon it being discovered that the respondent-employees had secured
appointments on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, an
FIR bearing No.29/05 dated 17th December 2005 stood registered
against them under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 and 120-B
Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no bar, as has been held in M.
Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.11 and as recently reiterated
in State Bank of India & Ors. v. P. Zadenga12 for departmental
and criminal proceedings to continue simultaneously. As such, the
criminal proceedings initiated as a result of alleged fraud committed
by the respondent-employees are independent of the proceedings
initiated by the appellant-employer. It has been held that in certain
cases it would be ideal if the criminal proceedings were stayed in
the pendency of the departmental proceedings, however, no such
prayer having been made, is on record.
13. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on a further
ground, since the requisite to establish eligibility for compassionate
appointment was not properly fulfilled, they were appointed on the
basis of false claims and fabricated documents. It then becomes
imperative to discuss what constitutes fraud and what is its impact
on an act afflicted by such vice. R.M. Sahai, J. writing in Shrisht
Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers13 observed -
“20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn
proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence.

11 [1999] 2 SCR 257 : (1999) 3 SCC 679
12 [2023] 12 SCR 740 : (2023) 10 SCC 675
13 [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 446 : (1992) 1 SCC 534
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 19

Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc.

It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael
Levi likens a fraudster to Milton’s sorcerer, Comus, who
exulted in his ability to, ‘wing me into the easy-hearted
man and trap him into snares’. It has been defined as
an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined
as an act or omission to act or concealment by which
one person obtains an advantage against conscience
over another or which equity or public policy forbids as
being prejudicial to another. In Black’s Legal Dictionary,
fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for
the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part
with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender
a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact
whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should
have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to
deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal
injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined
as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain
unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to
Halsbury’s Laws of England, a representation is deemed
to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation,
if it was at the material date false in substance and in
fact. …From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud
arises out of deliberate active role of representator about
a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in
misleading the representee by making him believe it to
be true. The representation to become fraudulent must
be of a fact with knowledge that it was false.
…..The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law,
as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises
from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts
knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power
and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must
result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not
have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in
relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence
or non-existence of which power can be exercised.”
20 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

13.1 The words of Denning L.J. in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley14
are of importance qua the impact of fraud. He wrote –
“…..I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No
Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage
he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no
order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been
obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The Court
is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded
and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgment,
contract and all transactions whatsoever….”
13.2 ‘Fraud’ is conduct expressed by letter or by word, inducing
the other party to take a definite stand as a response to the
conduct of the doer of such fraud. [See; Derry v. Peek;15 Ram
Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School of Intermediate
Education16]
13.3 In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors., 17 a
Bench of three learned Judges observed that a person who
held a post which he had obtained by fraud, could not be
said to be holding a post within the meaning of Article 311 of
the Constitution of India. In this case, a person who was not
a member of Scheduled Castes, obtained a false certificate
of belonging to such category and, as a result thereof, was
appointed to a position in the Indian Police Service reserved
for applicants from such category.
14. The above discussion reiterates that fraud vitiates all proceedings.
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. So far as
the submission of non-compliance of the Rules is concerned, the
judgment in Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) answers the question. The

14 (1956) 1 QB 702
15 (1889) 14 AC 337
16 [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 352 : (2003) 8 SCC 311
17 [2004] 1 SCR 360 : (2004) 2 SCC 105
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 21

Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc.

respondent-employees in the present case, having obtained their
position by fraud, would not be considered to be holding a post
for the purpose of the protections under the Constitution. We are
supported in this conclusion by the observations made in Devendra
Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal.18 In paragraph 25 thereof it was
observed –
“25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with
law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify
the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus — a foundation
being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having
done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong
and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a
competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus
commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies.
The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge
that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or
investigation. (Vide Union of India v. Major General Madan
Lal Yadav [(1996) 4 SCC 127 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 592 : AIR
1996 SC 1340] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000)
6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056] .) Nor can a person
claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex
injuria non oritur).
(Emphasis supplied)
15. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court, in view of the
above discussion, is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal
dismissing the respondent-employees’ Original Applications is
restored. The respondent-employees were rightly dismissed from
service by the appellant-employer. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are only with respect to the dismissal from service, of
the respondent-employees and shall have no bearing on the criminal
proceedings pending in the concerned Court. The said case(s) is
to be decided on its merits uninfluenced by the observations made
hereinabove.
16. As such, the appeals are allowed. Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of with costs made easy.

18 [2013] 8 SCR 471 : (2013) 9 SCC 363
22 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4445 OF 2014 :
17. In view of the foregoing discussion made in Civil Appeal Nos.4434-
4437 of 2014, this appeal is also, on similar facts, allowed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan