IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely based on an acquittal involving moral turpitude without considering the evidence and circumstances of the case.

ORDER :

Per, Kuldeep Mathur,J.

The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in OA No.275/2018: “Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.”., whereby, the petitioner- Railways has been directed to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds on a suitable post being dependent family member of a deceased employee namely Rajendra Kumar.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the father of the respondent (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘deceased employee’) while working on the post of Ambulance Driver with petitioner-Railways passed away on 09.08.2014. At the time of the demise, the deceased employee was facing criminal trial for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC in connection with FIR dated 08.08.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid criminal case, the respondent and his mother were also made accused for the same offence. The competent criminal court after conducting criminal trial against the respondent and his mother vide judgment and order dated 17.02.2018 acquitted them from the charges by extending them benefit of doubt. The application dated 19.09.2014 filed by the mother of the respondent to the competent authority seeking appointment of his son i.e., the respondent on compassionate grounds came to be rejected vide communication dated 23.08.2018 on the ground that the acquittal of the respondent in criminal case involving moral turpitude was not an honorable acquittal.

3. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- Railways vehemently and fervently submitted that the learned Tribunal while directing the competent authority of the railway department to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground failed to appreciate that the FIR dated 08.08.2012 was lodged by the complainant-Rajendera Kumar against the accused persons stating inter alia that the accused persons allured job aspirants seeking employment in the railways, to secure appointment in their favour and in order to deceive them, they not only got an application form filled up but also conducted a dummy written and medical examination. So much so, a forged appointment order for the post of Ticket Checker was also issued in favour of the complainant. As per the FIR, the written and medical examination was conducted in the presence of respondent. Learned counsel contended that looking to the seriousness of the allegations against the deceased employee and the respondent, mere acquittal in the criminal case would not automatically make the respondent entitled to compassionate appointment. The competent authority of the petitioner- Railways after considering all the relevant factors relating to the antecedents of the respondent in its discretion has rightly turned down the request made by the respondent to provide him compassionate appointment in the railways. It was urged that a perusal of the order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the competent criminal court clearly shows that the respondent had been acquitted on the basis of being extended the benefit of doubt.

To buttress these submissions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments:-

1. “Union of India & Ors. v. Methu Meda”: (2022)1 SCC 1

2. “The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhupendra Yadav”: 2023 AIR (SC) 4553.

4. Per contra, Mr. Anirudh Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application No.275/2018 preferred by the respondent. It was urged that the respondent was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him by the competent criminal court.

As a matter of fact, the order of the learned Tribunal dated 23.01.2024 would indicate that the learned Tribunal after going through the entire order passed by the competent criminal court opined that no