http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1470 of 2007

PETITIONER: The Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare-Residential Educational Institutions

RESPONDENT: Sri Pindiga Sridhar & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/03/2007

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P.( C) No. 25080 of 2005)

H.K. SEMA,J.

               Leave granted.

               Heard the parties.

               The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated  23.8.2005 passed 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.

               Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

               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.  He was appointed as a typist on 22.11.2002  on compassionate ground.  His 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 termination before the learned Single  Judge.  However, on appeal being preferred by him the  Division 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.                  The undisputed facts are:

               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) 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 Mandal Parishad  Development Officer.  The respondent as earlier noticed was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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, 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 Mandal Parishad Development  Officer, when the respondent was appointed as a typist on  compassionate ground on 22.11.2002.                   The respondent vide his application-dated 6.5.1996,  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:-   

"This is to certify that Shri/Smt./Kum. P.  Sreedhar son/wife/daughter of Shri/Smt. Late  P. Andhru R/o 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.,                                                              (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 this  fact.  In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the department  was justified in terminating the services of the respondent by  the impugned order dated 15.3.2003.    

               The High Court on the basis of the erroneous view    upset the well-merited judgment of the learned Single Judge.   By now, it is well settled principle of law that the principles 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 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 22.11.2002 his wife was in service since 3.8.1997 as  Extension Officer in Rural Development and later on promoted  as Mandal Parishad Development Officer at the time when he  was appointed on compassionate 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 of the principles of natural  justice is, therefore, clearly erroneous.   In our view, 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.           In the result, the order of the Division bench of the  High Court dated 23.8.2005, is accordingly set aside.  The  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

appeal is allowed.  The order of the learned Single Judge is  restored and writ petition of the respondent stands dismissed.   No costs.