UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. versus PROHLAD GUHA ETC.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[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