K.PADMANABHAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns Exhibit P3 order of the Tribunal, by which the Tribunal refused to interfere with the termination of the petitioner ordered on 26.11.1996.

(2.) THE petitioner, through his mother, claimed for compassionate appointment on the death of his father and was granted the same in the year 1994, after relaxing the age limit for appointment. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Railway authorities that the documents produced by the petitioner to avail of the benefit of the compassionate appointment were forged and an enquiry was ordered. In the enquiry, it was revealed that the school certificate produced by the petitioner was a forged one and in fact the petitioner had been studying in another school. The records of the school, in which the petitioner had actually studied, revealed that the petitioner was not the son of the deceased employee. The mother of the petitioner, who had initially sought for compassionate appointment for the petitioner, was found to have applied for and issued with a Succession Certificate by the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Office declaring the legal heirs of her late husband, viz., Karuppan; who was alleged to be the father of the applicant. This certificate did not show the petitioner as one of the legal heirs, though he claims to be the son of Karuppan. The facts revealed at the enquiry clearly showed that the petitioner was not the son of the deceased employee; viz., Karuppan, and hence was not entitled to any compassionate appointment. On the basis of the findings in the enquiry, accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Annexure A1 order dated 26.11.1996 was issued removing the petitioner from service with effect from 5.12.1996.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously urge that his alternate contention is that Annexure A1 order has been passed by an authority who is not the appointing authority and, hence, is vitiated by reason of being against the clear mandate in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his argument, the learned counsel would invite us to Annexure A2, wherein the authority who is competent to make appointments on compassionate grounds is clearly specified. We extract the same hereunder: