Holding

The department was justified in terminating the respondent’s compassionate appointment because it was obtained by suppressing material facts, and therefore the principles of natural justice did not require a show‑cause notice.

Summary

The respondent applied for a compassionate appointment after his father's death, claiming he was not employed or had any family members in service. In reality, his mother was a teacher and his wife held a government post, facts he concealed. He was appointed as a typist in 2002, but the department terminated his service in 2003 on the ground of fraud. The respondent challenged the termination, arguing that the lack of a show‑cause notice violated the principles of natural justice; the High Court Division Bench set aside the termination for this reason. The Supreme Court held that because the appointment was obtained by suppressing material facts, the department was justified in terminating it and no prejudice was caused, so the principles of natural justice did not require a notice. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, restored the termination order, and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the termination of a compassionate appointment is valid when the employee concealed material facts about family members in service.
Whether the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of a show‑cause notice, apply in such a case.
Whether the admission of fraud negates the need to observe natural justice procedures.

Subjects

compassionate appointmentnatural justiceshow cause noticeterminationfraudservice law

Judgment

L

A
THE SECRETARY, A.P. SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
v.
SHRI PINDIGA SRIDHAR AND ORS.

MARCH 19, 2007 B
[H.K. SEMA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Service Law:
c
Appointment-Compassionate appointment-Appointment sought
admittedly concealing certain facts-Appointment granted-Termination on
the ground that the same was secured by suppressing the facts-Single Judge
of High Court upholding the order-Division Bench of High Court set aside
the order of termination on the ground that before passing it, show cause D
notice was not given to the employee and hence violative of principles of
Natural Justice-On appeal, held: Department was justified in terminating
the services of the employee-In view of the admitted facts of suppression,
there was no necessity to issue show cause notice-In the facts of the case,
principles of Natural Justice were not violated
E
Principles-Principles of Natural Justice-Applicability-Held; The
principle cannot be applied in a straight jacket formula- It depends on facts
and circumstances of each case.

Respondent applied for compassionate appointment with the appellant
Institution after death of his father in harness. He was appointed on F
compassionate ground. At the time, he had applied for the appointment, his
mother was in service and when he joined the service, his wife was in service.
These facts are admitted by the respondent. His appointment was terminated
on the ground that the same was secured by suppressing the facts. He
challenged the order of termination in Writ Petition and the same was
dismissed by Single Judge of High Court Division Bench of High Court in G
writ Appeal, set aside the order of Single Judge holding that the termination
order violated the principles of Natural justice as the respondent was not given
show cause notice, before the same was passed. Hence the present appeal.

145 H
'

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court ).._

HELD: I. When the respondent made an application for appointment on
compassionate ground his mother was in service and his wife were in services
when he was appointed. Therefore, the respondent secured the appointment '

on compassionate ground by suppressing this fact. In the aforesaid facts and
B circumstances, the department was justified in terminating the services of
the respondent. [Paras 7 and 8) (147-E-F-G-H; 148-A-B-C-D)
.....
2.1. Principles ofnatural justice cannot be applied in a straight jacket

c
formula. Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
To sustain the coin plaint of the violation of principles of natural justice, one ---
must establish that he was prejudiced for non-observance of the principles of
natural justice. [Para 9) (148-E)

2.2. fo the present case, the fact on which the appellant terminated the
services of the respondent, appointed on compassionate ground was admitted
by the respondent himself that when he applied for the post on compassionate
D
ground his mother was in service. So also when he secured the appointment
his wife was in service. These facts clearly disclose that the appointment on
'-.._
compassionate ground was secured by playing fraud. Fraud clocks everything.
In such admitted facts, there was no necessity of issuing show cause notice
to him. The view of the High Court that termination suffers from the non-
E observance of the principles of natural justice is therefore., clearly erroneous.
In the given facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the
respondent. The respondent could not have improved his case even if a show
cause notice was issued to him. (Para 9) [148-E-F-G-H; 149-A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1470 of2007.
F
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 356 of 2005.

Roy Abraham, Seema Jain and Himinder Lal for the Appellant.

G S. Chandra Shekhar, Shanmuga Patro, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Manoj Saxena
and T.V. George for the Respondents. -.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by '--

H.K. SEMA, J. I. Leav~ granted.
H
L
/-

THE SECRETARY. A.P. SOCIAL \\'ELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS•·. PINDIGA SRIDHAR ISEMA l.l} 47
~
2. Heard the parties. A
3. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.8.2005 passe~
by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal
No.356 of 2005. This appeal is preferred by the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh
Social Welfare Residential Education Institutions.
B
4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-
-.I

5. The father of the respondent late Sri P. Andhru was employed in the
.,, Government of Andhra Pradesh as a Hostel Warden. He died in harness on
31.3 .1996. The respondent being one of the sons of late Sri P. Andhru applied
for appointment on compassionate ground by his application dated 6.5.1996. c
He was appointed as a typist on 22.11.2002 on compassionate ground. His
f"- appointment on compassionate ground came to be terminated by an order
dated 15.3.2003 on the ground that he secured the appointment by suppressing
the facts. He unsuccessfully challenged the order of teITT.ination before the
learned Single Judge. However, on appeal being preferred by him the Division
D
Bench of the High Court upset the well-merited order of the learned Single
Judge, on the sole ground that the order of termination violates the principles
of natural justice as no show cause notice has been given to the respondent
before the impugned order was issued. Hence the present appeal by special
leave.
E
6. The undisputed facts are:

7. Late Sri P. Andhru was survived by wife Smt. P. Santhoshamma and
two sons namely Sri P. Sridhar (respondent herein) and Sri P. Srikanth. At the
time when the respondent made an application for appointment on
compassionate ground, the mother of the respondent (Smt. P. Santhoshamma) F
,)
was employed as a teacher in Z.P. High School, Suryapet. The wife of the
respondent Sirisha was appointed as Extension Officer in the Rural
Development on 3.8.1997 and later on, she was promoted as Manda! Parishad
Development Officer. The respondent as earlier noticed was appointed as a
typist on compassionate ground on 22.11.2002. The aforesaid fact was
conceded by the counsel appearing for the respondent. The fact, therefore,
G
..i;
reveals that when he made an application for appointment on compassionate
,,; ground on 6.5.1996, the mother of the respondent was employed as a teacher
in Z.P. High School, Suryapet, which fact was not disclosed by him in his
' application dated 6.5.1996. It is also clear that the wife of the respondent was
in service as a Manda! Parishad Development Officer, when the respondent H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A was appointed as a typist on compassionate ground on 22.11.2002.

8. The respondent vide his application-dated 6.5. l 996, applied for
appointment on compassionate ground as dependent of late Sri P. Andhru.
The respondent attached non-employment certificate with his application for
appointment on compassionate ground. The certificate reads:-
B
"This is to certify that Shri/Smt./Kum. P. Sreedhar son/wife/daughter
of Shri/Smt. Late P. Andhru Rio Suryapat is not employed in any
Government or Quasi-Government Departments/Undertaking/
Corporation or any Private Organisation. No any other member of
their family is employed in any Dept.,
c
(Emphasis supplied)

It clearly shows that.the respondent did not disclose that his mother was in
service as a teacher in Z.P. High School, Surpapet. In our view, therefore, the
respondent secured the appointment on compassionate ground by suppressing
D this fact. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the department was justified
in terminating the services of the respondent by the impugned order dated
15.32003.

9. The High Court on the basis of the erroneous view upset the well-
E merited judgment of the learned Single Judge. By now, it is well settled
principle of Jaw that the principle.s of natural justice cannot be applied in a
straight jacket formula. Its application depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. To sustain the complaint of the violation of
principles of natural justice one must establish that he was prejudiced for
non-observance of the principles of natural justice; In the present case, the
F fact on which the appellant terminated the services of the respondent appointed
on compassionate ground was admitted by the respondent himself that when
he applied for the post on compassionate ground by its application, dated
6.5.1996, his mother was in service. So also when he secured the appointment
by an order dated 22. l l .2002 his wife was in service since 3.8.1997 as Extension
G Officer in Rural Development and later on promoted as Manda) Parishad
Development Officer at the time when he was appointed on compassion~te
ground. These facts clearly disclose that the appointment on compassionate
ground was secured by playing fraud. Fraud clocks everything. In such
admitted facts, there was no necessity of issuing show cause notice to him.
The view of the High Court that termination suffers from the non-observance
H of the principles of natural justice is, therefore, clearly erroneous. In our view,
THE SECRETARY. A.P. SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS •.. PINOIGA SRIDHAR ISEMA. J.J I49

in the given facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to A
the respondent. The respondent could not have improved his case even if a
show cause notice was issued to him.

10. In the result, the order of the Division bench of the High Court d~ted
23 .8.2005, is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order of the
learned Single Judge is restored and writ petition of the respondent stands B
dismissed. No costs .
.... K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

.)

)