IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right – A person, claiming appointment on such ground, has to demonstrate his relationship to deceased person and eligibility for appointment.
(2) When persons seeking appointment on such ground attempt to falsely establish their eligibility, such positions cannot be allowed to be retained.
(3) Fraud vitiates all proceedings.

Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Principle of compassionate appointment has been put in place to ameliorate suffering that is cast upon members of a family upon sudden death of earning member – Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right – A person, claiming appointment on such ground, has to demonstrate his relationship to deceased person and eligibility for appointment – Same cannot be done without placing all relevant documents before competent authority. (Para 7)
(B) Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 – Rule 14 – Termination from service – Reversal by High Court – Services of compassionate appointees were terminated for being based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents – Ever since suspension orders were issued qua respondent-employees, they have not rendered any service to appellant-employer – Original order of termination was not stayed either by High Court or Supreme Court – Authority had issued show-cause notices to respondent employees to which they responded – It was subsequent thereto, upon finding responses to be unsatisfactory, they were removed from service – Respondent employees have, at every stage, actively participated in adjudication process of their alleged improper and illegal appointments – There is no bar for departmental and criminal proceedings to continue simultaneously – As such, criminal proceedings initiated as a result of alleged fraud committed by respondent employees are independent of proceedings initiated by appellant employer – Since requisite to establish eligibility for compassionate appointment was not properly fulfilled, they were appointed on the basis of false claims and fabricated documents – Compassionate appointment is granted to those persons whose families are left deeply troubled or destitute by primary breadwinner either having been incapacitated or having passed away – When persons seeking appointment on such ground attempt to falsely establish their eligibility, such positions cannot be allowed to be retained – Respondent employees were rightly dismissed from service by appellant-employer – Impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside and order passed by Tribunal dismissing respondent-employees’ Original Applications restored.(Paras 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15)
(C) Fraud – ‘Fraud’ is conduct expressed by letter or by word, inducing other party to take a definite stand as a response to conduct of doer of such fraud – Fraud vitiates all proceedings. (Paras 13.2 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Extant appeals filed by Union of India1 take exception to a common judgment and order dated 2nd August 2012 passed in WPCT Nos.207, 213, 214, and 215 of 2012, by High Court of Calcutta whereby common order passed in Original Application Nos.794, 797, 795, and 796 of 2008, respectively, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, was reversed and relief claimed by the respondents were allowed.
Findings of Court:
Observations made herein are only with respect to dismissal from service, of respondent-employees and shall have no bearing on the criminal proceedings pending in the concerned Court. Said case(s) is to be decided on its merits uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4434-4437 OF 2014:

1. The extant appeals filed by the Union of India¹ [Appellant-Employer] take exception to a common judgment and order dated 2nd August 2012² [Impugned Judgment] passed in WPCT Nos. 207, 213, 214, and 215 of 2012, by the High Court of 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 [Suspension order dated 29th August 2005 in respect of Sri Biswanath Biswas]

2.2 On issuing show cause notice⁴ [Show Cause notice dated 11th November, 2005 in respect of Sri Biswanath Biswas] 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 [Order of Appellate Authority dated 31st March 2008 in respect of Sri Biswanath Biswas] reproduced as under:

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.

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 [Hereinafter ‘Discipline Rules’] 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 dis