Madras HC Upholds Termination of Employee Who Deceived to Obtain Appointment

LI Network

Published on: 01 September 2023 at 11:59 IST

The Madras High Court has upheld the termination of an individual who secured a compassionate appointment by providing false information, stating that he does not deserve any sympathy.

Justice CV Karthikeyan expressed strong criticism over the man’s actions, highlighting how he had obtained an indigent certificate by suppressing crucial details about his family’s financial situation. This deceptive act allowed him to secure employment based on fraudulent documentation.

The court’s sentiments were conveyed as follows: “I am not able to understand as to how he could have ever gone to his office knowing that it was obtained on the basis of a false certificate. The entire issue should have rankled him but still he continued to work. He continued to draw salary. That salary is paid from and out of the public exchequer and salary is part of the taxes paid by the general public. Naturally, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy at all.”

The case revolved around the petitioner’s plea against the cancellation of an indigent certificate that he had acquired. Additionally, he challenged an order from the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, which led to his dismissal from employment.

The petitioner had misrepresented the fact that his mother was a government employee, allowing him to qualify for the indigent certificate.

Despite the petitioner’s claim that his mother lived separately from his father and should be considered separate from his family’s government service, the court ruled that their marital bond remained intact.

The court emphasized that the petitioner should have disclosed the accurate information about his mother during the application process, given that the certificate was issued based on the family’s financial conditions.

The court further noted that the petitioner, at the age of 30, should have been well aware of the consequences of suppressing vital information to obtain a certificate. The court underscored that the petitioner couldn’t claim ignorance or innocence, given the deliberate nature of his actions.

In light of these considerations, the Madras High Court refused to intervene in the matter and dismissed the petitioner’s plea.

The case, titled “N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others,” demonstrates the court’s commitment to upholding honesty and integrity in obtaining appointments and certificates.

Related Post