NDLI: Union of India & Ors. Etc. Vs. Prohlad Guha Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Termination from service Principles of natural justice False claims Production of documents Service Law Compassionate appointment Forged/fabricated and bogus documents Protection under Constitution Article 311 of Constitution Fraud Fraud vitiates all proceedings
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Railway Servants (discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (0 of 1968)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	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, 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]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 563
Petitioner	Union Of India & Ors. Etc.
Respondent	Prohlad Guha Etc.
SCR	[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8
Judgement Date	2024-08-01
Case Number	4434-4437

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

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

Please Log-in to view this content

Union of India Vs. M.a. Chowdhary

Ashok Gulabrao Bondre Vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh and Others

Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad Etc. Etc. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors. Etc. Etc.

The State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Etc.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Vijay Shanker Tripathi

Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors. Vs. Ajay Manchanda Etc.

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Nepal Singh Vs. State of U. P. & Ors .

Mallikarjuna Rao and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Etc. Etc.

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

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

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Union of India Vs. M.a. Chowdhary

Ashok Gulabrao Bondre Vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh and Others

Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad Etc. Etc. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors. Etc. Etc.

The State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Etc.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Vijay Shanker Tripathi

Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors. Vs. Ajay Manchanda Etc.

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Nepal Singh Vs. State of U. P. & Ors .

Mallikarjuna Rao and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Etc. Etc.

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