The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its astonishment over how individuals could be appointed to government positions in the Railways without proper verification of their documents. This concern arose during a session dealing with the termination of some Railway employees who were hired on compassionate grounds but were later found to have used forged documents.
The bench, comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, scrutinized the matter after the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court had previously handled the terminations. The apex court was critical of the Railways, one of India’s largest employers, for allowing such lapses in the verification process.
In their ruling, the justices noted, “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.”
The discussion stemmed from the Centre’s appeals challenging a Calcutta High Court verdict from August 2012, which had reversed a decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Kolkata. The tribunal had initially dismissed applications from the terminated employees, who then sought relief from the high court.
The Supreme Court’s examination revealed that the Railways had sent show cause notices to these employees, questioning the legitimacy of their employment on compassionate groundsโspecifically pointing out that these positions were secured using fraudulent documents related to their fathers’ employment records.
Justice Maheshwari emphasized, “The principle of compassionate appointment is designed to alleviate the suffering of families after the sudden death of the breadwinner. However, it cannot be claimed as a right. Those seeking such appointments must convincingly demonstrate their relationship to the deceased and their eligibility.”
The court also highlighted that every stage of the legal process involving these appointments had revealed the use of forged documents. An FIR was registered against the implicated employees in December 2005.
Also Read
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s verdict and reinstating the tribunal’s order. The justices affirmed, “The respondent-employees were rightly dismissed from service by the appellant-employer,” clarifying that this decision does not impact the ongoing criminal proceedings against them.
