'Fraud Unravels All Solemn Transactions': Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Compassionate Appointee Terminated After 27-Yrs Service

Holding that fraud vitiates everything else, the Allahabad High Court has denied any relief to the employee who had worked for 27 years as compassionate appointee, citing grounds of fraud committed by him in obtaining the appointment.Upholding the order declaring his appointment void ab initio with effect from the date of appointment, i.e., 31.03.1998, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,“fraud nullifies all rights arising from such an appointment, as it renders the act void ab initio, and the petitioner, who obtained the appointment on the basis of fraud, cannot claim any benefits on the ground that he has worked for 27 years.”Observing that true facts regarding succession and father's government job had been concealed for seeking compassionate appointment, the Court held,“Consequently, a person who conceals vital facts cannot turn around and allege interference with judicial review. The constitutional power of this Court is meant to advance justice, not to perpetuate fraud. Once suppression is established, the only consequence is dismissal of the petition, irrespective of the merits of the case.”Petitioner's father had two wives. Petitioner was the son of the first wife and the complainant was the daughter of the second wife. Upon death of the second wife of the petitioner's father, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Basic Education Department by producing the Legal Heir Certificate and was granted the same in 1998. After 20 years of his service, his step-sister, Snehlata, filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, alleging that petitioner's appointment was based on fraud. An inquiry was conducted and petitioner was terminated. The termination was challenged and set aside with liberty to conduct fresh inquiry. Thereafter, a detailed inquiry was conducted and eventually the services of the petitioner were terminated. This termination was again challenged before the High Court. The Court observed that the Inquiry Officer had recorded a specific finding that the petitioner was not cooperating with the inquiry proceedings, and that the father of the petitioner was a Lekhpal at the time of death of his second wife and had retired in 2015 as a Revenue Officer. It held that the appointment of the petitioner as son of the second wife was based on a false Legal Heir Certificate and without disclosing the factum of the father's government job. Observing that inquiry under Rule 5(1) of the Dying in Harness Rules 1974 is essential to verify the authenticity of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds, the Court held that “The petitioner's persistent non-cooperation and failure to appear despite multiple notices suggest an attempt to evade the inquiry process, thereby undermining the principles of transparency and accountability. Such conduct not only violates service regulations but also erodes public confidence in the integrity of recruitment procedures. It is imperative that the findings of the inquiry be given due weight and, if substantiated, appropriate disciplinary or legal action be taken to uphold justice and deter future irregularities.”The Court further observed that the succession certificate made upon the death of the second wife only mentioned the names of the children from the first wife. It held that the father had deliberately submitted false certificate and affidavit to secure compassionate appointment for the petitioner. It also observed that no no-objection certificate from the daughters of the second wife was produced before the Court regarding compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Observing that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands by deliberately suppressing material facts and producing fraudulent documents, the Court held“The present case is a glaring example of blatant fraud committed by the petitioner in its most aggravated form. The petitioner has gone to reprehensible lengths to mislead this Court at every stage and has unscrupulously attempted to hoodwink officers of various departments. Such conduct strikes at the very root of justice and cannot be countenanced. This Court, therefore, finds it imperative to deal with the matter sternly and in the strictest terms of law.”Relying on various judgments of the Apex Court, Justice Chauhan held that equity cannot be considered where benefit is sought to be obtained based of forged documents. It further held that mere stay on criminal proceedings will not bar the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. Referring to U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the Court held that“Even if the Rules of 1999 do not expressly enumerate “cancellation of appointment” as a separate head of penalty, the power to remove, dismiss or terminate an employee on account of proved misconduct is sufficiently comprehensive to include annulment of the initial appointment itself, wherever the very entry into service is tainted. The doctrine of...

'Fraud Unravels All Solemn Transactions': Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Compassionate Appointee Terminated After 27-Yrs Service

Upasna Agrawal

Tags