'Deserves No Sympathy': Madras High Court Upholds Termination Of Man Who Obtained Compassionate Appointment With A False Certificate

Upasana Sajeev

31 Aug 2023 12:30 PM GMT

  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
  • Deserves No Sympathy: Madras High Court Upholds Termination Of Man Who Obtained Compassionate Appointment With A False Certificate

    The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal from service of a man who had obtained a compassionate appointment through suppression of facts, observing that he did not deserve any sympathy.Justice CV Karthikeyan criticised the manner in which the man had obtained a certificate claiming that his family was indigent by suppressing material facts and went on to...

    The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal from service of a man who had obtained a compassionate appointment through suppression of facts, observing that he did not deserve any sympathy.

    Justice CV Karthikeyan criticised the manner in which the man had obtained a certificate claiming that his family was indigent by suppressing material facts and went on to get employment based on the certificate.

    I am not able to understand as to how he could have ever gone to his office knowing that it was obtained on the basis of a false certificate. The entire issue should have rankled him but still he continued to work. He continued to draw salary. That salary is paid from and out of the public exchequer and salary is part of the taxes paid by the general public. Naturally, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy at all.” 

    The court was hearing a plea against an order of the revenue Divisional Officer cancelling an indigent certificate issued to him earlier. Challenge was also made to an order of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine to remove him from service. The case was that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that his mother was working as an Upgraded Assistant and was drawing a salary of Rs 11,289 per month while applying for the indigent certificate and had claimed that nobody in his family was in government service.

    He contended that his mother, though working in the Government department, was living separately from his father and that it is to be presumed that after his father’s death, no one in the family was working in the government service. It was also submitted that the order of cancellation of the certificate was without notice and that the punishment imposed was too harsh.

    The court however observed that the fact that the mother was living separately did not come to his advantage since the marriage and the bondage of mother and son still subsisted.

    The fact that the mother living separately does not come to the advantage of the petitioner since, the bondage of mother and son subsisted. That can never be frustrated by any court of law. The mother can separate herself from the father of the petitioner but even then merely living separate does not mean that the marital relationship has been severed. It still subsists and it still subsisted on the date of the death of his father,” the court observed.

    The court also observed that the certificate was issued in view of the fact that there was no property for the family and nobody was working in any governmental department. The court noted that the petitioner, after going through the order should have understood that the certificate was based on particular facts and even at that time should have disclosed the information about his mother. The court added that Mahendran could not claim ignorance and should be aware of the consequences of suppression of facts.

    This is a case where the petitioner had, for some reason, suppressed a vital information and had obtained the certificate declaring that not only him, but the whole family was, after the death of the father was in indigent circumstances. That fact is not correct… At the age of 30 years, he should be aware of the consequences of suppression of vital fact and obtaining a certificate on the basis of such suppression. He cannot not claim ignorance. He cannot claim innocence and he cannot seek indulgence of this Court,” the court said.

    Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the order, the court dismissed the petitions.

    Case Title: N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248


    Next Story